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

Ezra’s guide to good investment governance

Co chair of global consulting at Russell, Don Ezra, says the progress towards best practice in investment governance is painfully slow. He spoke to Amanda White about why that path is worth enduring and some principles for creating a good governance structure. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

CalPERS collaborates on enterprise risk assessment

The speed with which CalPERS can fulfil its desire to become a risk intelligent organisation has been given a reality check with discussions between the Californian fund and TIAA-CREF revealing it takes two to five years to fully implement an effective enterprise risk-management structure, and importantly a risk intelligent culture in an organisation. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored

Instos “suppress” their home country biases

Institutional investors continued to suppress home country biases and globalise equity portfolios during 2009, a year in which risk appetite returned as equity markets rallied and short-dated credit strategies thrived, according to manager search data from Mercer Investment Consulting. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Distressed opportunities spurs internal expansion at Maryland

The $35 billion Maryland State Retirement Agency will increase its internal investment team by 25 per cent as it looks to expand its coverage of market activities and take advantage of opportunities in the distressed market. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Funds must rethink global equities, says consultant

Mercer Investment Consulting has undertaken a review of global equities and is about to roll out to clients a paper which questions traditional cap-weighted benchmarks. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Short termism presents opportunities for long-term investors

There is more opportunity to capture value-added returns by focusing on the long-horizon end of the investment spectrum, than join the over-crowded short-horizon end where most investment management is conducted, according to president and chief executive of the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), David Denison. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Previous