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

European distressed debt: investors divided by volatility

Last month conexust1f.flywheelstaging.com hosted a thinktank with a group of influential Australian investors to discuss the opportunities in European distressed debt. Participants included the Australian Government’s $80 billion sovereign wealth Future Fund, the $68 billion QIC, and leading asset consultants, with guest speaker sir David Cooksey, former board member of the Bank of England, chairman

Governance, Gonski style

Since becoming chair of the $80-billion Future Fund in March, David Gonski has set an agenda to act like a public company chair. An element of that vision is to very clearly delegate to management. “The general manager has been elevated to a managing director and the six-monthly announcements will be his,” he says. Another

Risk parity manages risk regret

The risk parity approach to portfolio construction might not deliver results in a “bull stockmarket,” but remained a “robust and rigorous” methodology which also “managed risk regret over time.” These are the views of Wai Lee, chief investment officer of quantitive investment at New York-based fund manager Neuberger Berman, who was recently named winner of

African countries come to the sovereign wealth fund party

Many of the countries with the largest oil reserves also boast the largest sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). And yet African producers, like newcomer Ghana, Angola, and Nigeria which has been pumping oil since the 1950s, haven’t saved much of their oil revenue. Now, in an effort to replicate the long-term growth of funds like Norway’s

Regulatory risk in Europe a factor for infrastructure investment

The head of infrastructure at Australia’s $80 billion Future Fund has cited regulatory risk in Europe and the United Kingdom as reasons to be wary about infrastructure investment in the region. Raphael Arndt, the Future Fund’s head of infrastructure and timberlands, told a Sydney conference this week that he was particularly concerned with the situation

Europe’s credit rating crunch

It has been a bad month for credit-rating agency executives who thought they were winning the legal and regulatory arguments about how they conduct their business. In Australia, the Federal Court ruled on November 5 in favour of 12 local councils in New South Wales which claimed that Standard and Poor’s had misled them into

Previous