Do you get what you pay for?

A pay-for-performance measure of chief investment officers in the US has revealed paying more for an executive does not translate to better performance.

Developed by executive recruitment firm, Charles Skorina & Company, the index is calculated by assessing an institution’s investment returns over the past five years, and measuring it against the salary of the CIO.

A basis points earned per $100,000 of compensation is derived and then the CIO’s are ranked by this measure of “performance for pay”.

By this calculation, John Hull, chief investment officer of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation was the highest performing CIO, with 105 basis points per $100,000 of salary.

Hull manages $5.1 billion and earns $620,000, ranking him 46 out of 50 on Skorina’s list of highest paid CIOs in the US.

The highest paid CIO on this top 50 list is Harvard endowment’s Jane Mendillo earning around $4.7 million in total compensation, followed by Yale’s David Swensen with around $3.7 million.

Sponsored Content

Endowments dominate the list, with Texas Teachers’ CIO, Britt Harris the only pension fund chief investment officer featuring on the list, earning just over $1 million according to the Skorina data.

Applying the performance for pay calculation reveals Harris generated 29 basis points per $100,000 of salary; Swensen 16, and Mendillo 10.

Skorina says institutional investment boards have been asking him for years to develop a measure of performance for pay and so his aim was to develop a basic, objective and consistent measure.

“Chief investment officers and asset managers measure their service providers every day, but have excuses for why it doesn’t apply to them,” he says. “We wanted to create a simple measure, to create an MER for CIOs. If they think a measure such as basis points per dollar of their salary shouldn’t be used then earnings per share shouldn’t be used, and the S&P and Dow Jones would be defunct.

“You can say that each fund has different benchmarks and measures, but what it gets down to is how much money was made for the institution. An institution will forget about all the other things if you have a negative return.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CIO PERFORMANCE-FOR-PAY TABLE

2 responses to “Do you get what you pay for?”

  1. Chris Ailman

    David Villa and Charles Cary are both with Public Funds.

    While you point out people will always disagree, one does have to ask if the CIO had full discretion over Asset Allocation and risk appetite. It certainly isn’t level across these funds. I realize it’s the most recent time period, but would you ever use the data from 1928 to 1932 to measure someone’s performance?

    1. AMANDA WHITE

      Thanks for your comment Chris.
      Clearly it is more complicated than a simple basis points/$ figure, particularly at fiduciaries where the board sets strategy and the role of the investment team is to implement.
      I also take your point about time frames. One of the enduring challenges for the industry across the globe is to think, and act, with only long term goals in mind. I’d welcome ideas on how we can challenge the industry, in particular service providers and stakeholders, to think like that – long-term mandates perhaps?

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Rethinking investment performance attribution

As asset owners move away from silo-based investment decision making, their performance attribution systems also need to evolve. The Alberta Investment Management Corporation AimCo, the C$70 billion arm’s length investment manager for public sector assets in Alberta, Canada, has implemented a new performance attribution system based on how managers actually make their investment decisions.  

Benchmark design for an active investment process

Choosing the appropriate benchmark for active managers is a common debate among institutional investors. Norges Bank Investment Management has produced a “discussion note’ on the benchmark design for an active investment process, in which it introduces a flexible modelling framework that aims to incentivise each portfolio manager to utilise their stock-picking skill.   The benchmark

SSgA focuses on innovation not assets

For Scott Powers, president and chief executive of State Street Global Advisors, assets under management is not a measure of success – the manager is currently the world’s fourth largest with around $2.5 trillion. Instead it is the ability to provide value for clients in meeting their objectives – whether it be matching liabilities, creating

Pension funds put pressure on G20 tax reform

Pension funds are becoming vocal ahead of the G20 leaders summit next week, reiterating the need for action over tax reform, and encouraging world leaders to consider financial reform that encourages long-term investing. The UK’s Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, which is a collaborative shareholder engagement group of 61 local authority pension funds with combined

G20 urged to develop policies to support long-term investment

The Fiduciary Investors Symposium (FIS) at Harvard University has identified several of the key barriers to pension funds, endowments and sovereign wealth funds adopting more effective long-term and sustainable investment strategies, and is preparing a communiqué to the upcoming meeting of the G20 to convey its concerns and its policy requirements. FIS, organised and hosted

Future Fund focuses on finding the best people

Australia’s sovereign wealth fund, the A$101 billion Future Fund, has just upped the stakes in not only attracting the best co-investment deals from fund managers, but in its bid to attract the world’s best investment professionals. Two months ago the fund’s long serving chief investment officer, David Neal, become chief executive in name (following the

Previous