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

Towers Watson: complexity coming straight at you

To be a long-term investor requires thematic investing because markets and economies are complex adaptive systems, according to Tim Hodgson, global head of the thinking-ahead group at Towers Watson. Hodgson told delegates at the Towers Watson Ideas Exchange in Sydney that economies and markets are complex and adaptive, their path is not random and the

Hintze: people are
hungry for alpha

Interest rate risk is the biggest threat to portfolios and the chances of inflation are very high, according to Michael Hintze, founder and chief executive of CQS, who spoke at the AIMA Australia Hedge Fund Forum on September 10. Hintze believes there is a great deal of moral hazard in today’s markets, mostly in money

Asset owners invisible in capital debate

Asset owners are not visible in the policy debate about the structural shortage of long-term capital, according to Sony Kapoor, managing director of Re-Define, an economic and financial think tank that advises policy makers and civil society in the European Union. Kapoor, who recently completed a paper critiquing the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund’s investment strategy,

Tapering talk poses tough questions

Talk of tapering sent markets into occasional spins this summer – with negative reactions even following positive economic signals at times. Should institutional investors be concerned though of a seemingly impending slowdown in quantitative easing? Opinions are split as to whether a potentially damaging crash is on the horizon or investors can largely dismiss the

UK funds “profoundly” hurt by low interest rates

In his first major announcement as governor of the Bank of England, Canadian-born Mark Carney says ultra-low interest rates are here to stay. This couldn’t be worse news for pension funds, according to pension’s expert, Ros Altmann, but private-public collaboration on infrastructure could help ease the pain.   The prospect of another three years of

New way for Norway’s investments

The Norwegian government should establish a new fund, the Government Pension Fund – Growth, to invest in developing countries, resulting in the dual benefits of jobs creation and investment returns for the fund, recommends a report by Re-define, commissioned by Norwegian Church Aid. The NCA, which is a member of the humanitarian alliance, Act Alliance,

Previous