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

Hong Kong still has it: CIC recognises Hong Kong’s international finance status with subsidiary

The China Investment Corporation has recognised Hong Kong’s international position by establishing a wholly-owned subsidiary, Hong Kong-CIC International (Hong Kong) Co., Limited. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Credit overweight pushes Texas to top spot, performance pay reinstated

The 108 investment staff of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) have had their performance incentive awards reinstated, and will receive $9.7 million between them, after a year which saw the fund outperform its benchmark by 240 basis points making it the best performing public pension fund in the US.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2

New decision making parameters for Alaska’s investments

The $38.5 billion Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) has made further enhancements to its unique approach to investment decision making, clarifying procedures relating to risk guidelines in its investment policy. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Emerging and frontier markets continue darling run

Global equity markets significantly underperformed emerging and frontier markets in 2010, evidenced by MSCI Indices end of  year data, with some emerging markets returning as much as 50 per cent and some frontier markest returning 70 per cent for the year.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Japan fund reduces domestic bond weighting

The world’s largest investor, the ¥117,643 billion ($1.43 trillion) Government Pension Investment Fund of Japan (GPIF) has reduced its weighting to domestic bonds by more than 1 per cent, moving the money into short term assets.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Specialised short positions challenge beta behaviour

Long/short funds with specialised short positions have greater beta convexity and present greater liquidity strain in rebalancing, according to new research by Morgan Stanley.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Previous