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

Investors x embrace ethics

More than half of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, and around a third of the largest US state pension funds, have a disclosed code of ethics for their staff. According to the Public Fund Investment Policies 2015 annual review produced by the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, a code of ethics helps

Shared fund objectives key to investor success

The practice of benchmarking the salaries of senior executives of institutional funds with reference to external financial services firms, instead of the shared objectives of the fund, is a major barrier to their success, according to Professor Gordon Clark of Oxford University and director of Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. Clark sees the

PGGM halves CO2 footprint in investments

Ahead of the COP21 in Paris, the second largest Dutch fund with €161 billion ($160 billion), Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW), has announced it will halve the CO2 footprint of its investments by 2020. After an in-depth study with its fund manager, PGGM, the fund has decided its capital should be focused on companies that

Mercer’s seven tools for risk management reflect evolving landscape

Mercer Investments is using its deep insurance and environmental, social and governance (ESG) skills, contacts and processes to evolve its tools for advising clients on investment risk assessment, analysis and reporting – a move that reflects the evolving landscape for risk faced by investors. Partner and global head of responsible investment at Mercer, Jane Ambachtsheer,

OTPP advises on climate risk mitigation

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), an investor known for its advanced risk-management tools and processes, considers that the common tools available to investors to mitigate carbon risk for investors – portfolio carbon footprints and thematic divestment – provide incomplete risk management. The fund has suggested macro- and microanalysis is necessary to understand a company’s complete

PRI to consider new principle focusing on systemic risks

The UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) is considering a seventh principle that will focus on broad financial system systemic risks. The six principles were written before the global financial crisis and are focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) integration. Now, a decade after their creation, consideration of systemic risks is on the agenda and

Previous