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

Complexity: thinking ahead

Complexity is, well complex. And as trite as that sounds, it’s something investors, even professional investors, don’t understand well enough, according to Tim Hodgson, head of the Thinking Ahead Group at Towers Watson. The Thinking Ahead Group (TAG), as has been reported here before, gets paid to think – a gig conexust1f.flywheelstaging.com is envious of.

Study finds greenness equals performance

There is a positive correlation between the investment performance of REITs and the “greenness” of their portfolio holdings, according to a new paper by Maastricht University’s Piet Eichholtz, Nils Kok and Erkan Yonder. The paper – Portfolio greenness and the financial performance of REITs – finds that investment performance of REITs is positively related to

Benchmarking ESG changes behaviour

The power of benchmarking funds on sustainability is demonstrated by the fact 171 property companies and funds surveyed in the 2012 GRESB benchmarking report reduced GHG emissions by 6 per cent – this is a reduction of 432,000 metric tons of CO2, the equivalent of removing 85,000 cars from the road. The Global Real Estate

Taking RI from in-house to front of mind

The industry needs to be better at thinking how responsible investing can be accessed by smaller funds or those lacking sufficient internal resources, David Russell, co-head of responsible investment at the UK’s Universities Superannuation Scheme, says. Russell, who will join a panel at the Fiduciary Investors Symposium in Santa Monica produced by Conexus Financial, publisher

In-house not for
every house: WSIB

While the trend for most large institutional investors is to insource asset management, the $85-billion Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) has decided to take a different path. Much-cited CEM Benchmarking research shows that funds with internal-management platforms are better performers after cost, and this is largely driven by the lower costs of internal management. Many

Three-way shift in investor behaviour

There are three major behavioural shifts occurring among investors that will have significant impact on asset allocation in the next 10 years, according to a year-long study by global head of research at State Street’s Center for Applied Research, Suzanne Duncan. An increase in investor sophistication, re-evaluation of the risk/return trade-off and more discernment over

Previous