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

Breaking bad habits: why investors aren’t good at asset allocation

Institutional investors act like momentum investors, chasing returns, even over longer time horizons according to Asset Allocation and Bad Habits, a new research paper that looks at the impact of past returns on asset allocation. The paper commissioned by Rotman-ICPM and authored by Amit Goyal professor at Univeriste de Lausanne, Andrew Ang professor at Columbia Business

Is in-house management the future for large asset owners?

The allure of potentially higher net returns from portfolios precisely tailored to values, beliefs and risk appetite is hard for any asset owner to ignore, yet needs to be balanced against the many challenges associated with managing assets in-house. To this end, it is worth outlining the key benefits that in-house asset management can offer.

Addressing shortcomings in current corporate reporting

Investors don’t have access to all the information they need today. Raj Thamotheram, Mark Van Clieaf and Alan Willis ask: why aren’t investors (and their clients) demanding it? Without relevant, timely and reliable information, investors are unable to make informed long-term investment decisions. The efficiency of capital markets in allocating invested funds – the only real value of

To invest in China today you must be at the head of the kewfie

Regulatory proposals announced in April mean that in October foreign investors will be able to buy the top shares listed on the Chinese mainland stock exchange within annual quota limits. The momentum of market liberalisation is such that MSCI is considering using such A shares in its emerging market indices, a move that will take Chinese

Chinese SWFs need co-investors

China’s biggest sovereign wealth funds need, and want, co-investment opportunities in real assets and private equity and are open to new partnerships with international investors of the right credentials, and the longer term the partnership the better. This is the feedback of Michael Wadley, a specialist lawyer of Australian origin based in Shanghai, who runs

Foundations and endowments flock to long duration

The risk of a US equity market decline and concerns over the future direction of interest rates has been driving US foundations and endowments’ asset allocation decisions in the past year, with a distinct move away from US equity to global allocations and away from US-focused core to longer duration and high yield. The latest

Previous