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

The benefits of US regulatory reform

US regulatory reform, such as the SEC’s plan to restore the uptick rule and the Volcker rule to restrict proprietary trading, are a step in the right direction for those advocating transparency. Amanda White explores the story with the chief executive of Principal Global Investors, Jim McCaughan, and head of research, analysis and strategy at

CalPERS considers new asset class classification

CalPERS is considering doing away with traditional asset class classifications in favour of classifying assets according to fundamental characteristics in a bid to provide a better understanding of portfolio risks and performance drivers and so move to a more effective portfolio construction and risk management framework. Amanda White reports. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Risk parity becomes bittersweet flavour of the month (2)

  “Understanding a program’s results involves attributing relative performance to active management, identifying any tactical asset allocation decisions and assessing mechanical factors such as leverage costs. “For most investors implementation of a leveraged strategy would likely require the retention of a beta overlay manager to execute and maintain the desired leveraged systematic exposures or an

Selective opportunities in private markets: Wurts

Private market investors should focus on distressed debt and to a lesser extent secondaries, according to the annual private equity outlook by consultant Wurts Associates, which contrary to other industry observers believes value can be added through top down analysis of the sector. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Strategic implications drive climate change study

The 14 institutional investors participating in the climate change strategic asset allocation study, a collaborative between Mercer, Carbon Trust and the IFC, will all receive individual portfolio scenario analysis of how physical and policy climate change-related events could affect their portfolio at an asset allocation level. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

CalPERS sharpens risk, liability tools

After watching the simultaneous declines of its market value and funded status during the financial crisis, the $204.8 billion CalPERS will conduct a full review of the methodologies underpinning its asset liability management (ALM) process. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Previous