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

In pursuit of the perfect fee model

Matteo Dante Perruccio and Mark Barker, chief executive and co-chief investment officer of Hermes BPK, the boutique fund of funds majority-owned by Hermes Fund Managers in turn owned by the BT Pension Scheme, speak to Amanda White about the benefits of focusing on investment management, and not asset gathering, in the hedge fund game and

CalPERS to hold public board meetings

CalPERS’ remaining board meetings for the year, in May, July and September, will be open to the public as the fund deliberates a full asset-liability assessment, culminating in a potential change to the benchmark rate of return in December. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

The Netherlands leads charge into government bonds

The Netherlands, an innovator in pension investment management, is leading a renaissance into government bonds at the expense of corporate bonds, as other European countries further reduce their domestic equities allocation, according to Mercer Investment Consulting’s 2010 European asset allocation survey. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Flexible in-house thinking pays dividends for Canada’s HOOPP

A strategic shift into equities during 2009 and the completion of a multi-year strategy to bring all assets in house, has resulted in the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) returning 15.18 per cent return for 2009, positioning it as one of very few pension funds around the globe to be fully funded. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored

Australia’s UniSuper launches first internal capabilities

The $A25 billion ($23 billion) UniSuper will ramp up its internal funds management capabilities, with four of its own portfolios set to be running by the end of the year, in conjunction with a project that will see its defined benefit and defined contribution sections adopt differing investment strategies for the first time. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored

CalSTRS cost breakdown supports internal savings…

A breakdown of CalSTRS’ investment costs confirms the cost savings of internal asset management, with the fund’s internal asset management costs making up only 0.07 per cent of the total portfolio management costs, but comprising 30 per cent of the total assets managed. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Previous