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

CheckRisk rethinks the risk business

Beta-driven equity investors may currently be taking far greater risks than they are getting paid for when seeking broad market exposure, British risk expert Nick Bullman warns. Bullman, the founder of specialist risk consultancy CheckRisk, has developed a methodology using macroeconomic research along with econometric and behavioural risk inputs to identify what he describes as

Conservative Korea

Korean corporate pension funds have grown more conservative in their investments, increasing already high allocations to guaranteed-insurance contracts (GICs) and term savings, the Towers Watson Korea Pension Report shows. The annual snapshot of the Korean pension market found that 93 per cent of corporate pension-plan assets are allocated to principal-guaranteed products, of which nearly 58

Report reveals Norway’s SWF climate risk

Norway’s 3496 billion kroner (US$582.7 billion) sovereign wealth fund could suffer significant losses in a range of climate-change scenarios if it fails to hedge its risk by investing in climate-sensitive assets, the release of a confidential report shows. Norway’s Ministry of Finance recently released an extensive study by asset consultant Mercer on the effects of

Risk modelling
requires review

Advocating the use of financial models a six-year-old could understand and warning that the dogmatic belief in overly complex and unrealistic models contributed to the financial crisis were some of the challenging views put to the attendees of the recent CFA Institute’s annual conference. Throwing down the gauntlet was GMO asset-allocation team member James Montier,

Institutional investors fall behind USA Inc

Institutional investors are clearly behind in risk management compared to the innovative techniques implemented in treasury departments of corporate America, chief investment officer of Wurts and Associates, Jeff Scott says. Scott, who spent his career managing the balance sheet at Microsoft, Dow Chemical, the Alaska Permanent Fund and now investment consultant Wurts, says institutional investors

Pipes over promises

The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) is shunning European sovereign bonds, with the $152.8-billion fund’s head of investment saying European infrastructure offers far more attractive risk/return opportunities. Mark Wiseman, CPPIB’s executive vice-president of investments, told delegates at last week’s Milken Institute Global Conference 2012 in Los Angeles that the fund had chosen not to

Previous