cfa institute compensation study–executive summary

CFA INSTITUTE COMPENSATION STUDY–EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSEPTEMBER 2019

2

CFA Institute Compensation Study – Executive Summary September 2019

Table of ContentsForeword: 2019 CFA Institute Compensation Study 3

Summary of Findings 4

Respondent Profile Findings and Insights 6 Functions Profile 7

Experience Profile 8

Firm Size Profile 9

Industry Type Profile 10

Seniority Level Profile 11

Education Level Profile 12

Compensation Findings and Insights 13 Total Compensation 14

Incentive Opportunity 22

Salary 25

Appendix: About the Study 31 Methodology and Sampling 32

Glossary of Compensation Terms 34

Compensation Analysis: Compensation Tables 40

Foreword: 2019 CFA Institute Compensation StudyIntroductory Statement

In response to member/charterholder requests and to support

career planning, CFA Institute partnered with an expert third-party

firm to conduct an online compensation survey of all members/

charterholders globally. Using data from more than 15,000

respondents across 129 markets, we developed a summary

report and interactive dashboard that highlight key respondent

profile and compensation themes and trends. From the report and

dashboard, members/charterholders can see how compensation

for investment professionals is structured globally and gain

insights into compensation benchmarks.

We thank our members/charterholders who participated in the

May 2019 survey and enabled us to compile and share this

information with you.

We welcome your comments about this study and whether

you would like us to conduct future compensation studies.

Please leave feedback within the dashboard or contact us at:

[email protected]

Note: All compensation figures in this report are denoted in US dollars (USD).

Interactive Dashboard

The dashboard — available exclusively to CFA Institute members/

charterholders — organizes the compensation survey results by

region, country/markets, select metropolitan areas, organization

type, occupation, and select demographic elements, where sample

size permits.

Log in to the dashboard to select relevant fields and to customize

your analysis: www.cfainstitute.org/compensationstudy

This data and report are for the personal use of CFA Institute members/charterholders only. The data and report

may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior written permission of CFA Institute.

©2019 CFA Institute. All rights reserved.

3


2019 CFA Institute Compensation Study: Summary of FindingsInvestment Management Industry

Institutional Asset Management and Private Wealth Management

The investment management industry has two main segments:

Institutional Asset Management (AM) and Private Wealth

Management (PWM). These were the two most prevalent

industries among respondents. Within these industries, the

portfolio management function was the most prominent role —

much of the analysis in this report is focused on this core function.

– The AM and PWM segments have both seen changes in

recent years. Respondents’ pay for institutional portfolio

managers (PMs) is higher than for individual investment

relationship managers (RMs) at the most senior levels of

organizations, including management and executive levels.

At the senior professional level, PWM median pay is higher

than institutional PMs in both Asia Pacific and Europe,

Middle East and Africa (EMEA).

– More recently, institutional business has been subject to

intense pressures from the growth of passive investments

putting downward pressure on active management revenues,

particularly in developed markets like the United States, the

United Kingdom, and Switzerland. This, in turn, has negatively

affected pay levels in many specializations.

• Demand has been greater for alternatives and real estate

(which are two of the highest-paid PM focus areas for

respondents) where PMs may more readily create alpha.

• In Asia Pacific, however, demand for institutional PMs has been

high because of strong economic growth and less efficient

markets, which create more value creation opportunities for

PMs (versus in developed markets like the United States, the

United Kingdom, and Switzerland, where it has been harder to

generate alpha). Year-over-year (YoY) average salary growth in

Asia Pacific was the strongest of all regions.

• The PWM segment has continued to see asset and revenue

growth. Subsequently, although absolute pay is lower at the

senior level, respondents’ year-over-year average base salary

growth was higher for the PWM RMs than for institutional PMs in

both the Americas and Asia Pacific as the wealth management

industry has been growing strongly across those regions.

• In EMEA, however, base salary growth rates were lower than in the

Americas and Asia Pacific, as a result of pressures in the Swiss

Banking industry. The Banking Secrecy Act and tax disclosures

(such as FBAR, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts,

required in some situations by the United States Department of

the Treasury) have slowed wealth management business growth.

Research (Buy-Side and Sell-Side)

• The second most prevalent function for respondents after

PM was research. The majority of respondents in the United

States sell-side research roles were focused on equities (73%),

and in the United States buy-side roles, the largest single

focus area was also equities (46%). Equities trading revenues

(which historically have helped fund equity research divisions)

have declined as trading has moved to low-cost, low-touch

automated channels. This has added to the pressure from

reduced demand for research roles stemming from increases

in passive investing. Overall, this has resulted in downward

pressure on compensation for the research function.

The Impact of Market and Seniority

• Respondent data also showed that although the Americas

had the highest absolute pay levels for executives in the

PM function, the Asia Pacific region had a higher premium in

pay at the executive level relative to senior and intermediate

professionals (potentially driven by expatriates moving to the

Asia Pacific to run offices for a few years in preparation for

C-Suite positions). The United States has been more tolerant of

higher executive pay on an absolute basis and has larger asset

management firms relative to other regions.

• Portfolio management compensation shows greater

differentiation across key markets among the more senior

levels of respondents. Salary growth was also strong in

markets with robust economic growth (Brazil, Russia, India,

China, and South Africa – the BRICS economies.)

4


Respondent Profile Findings and Insights

• The 2019 CFA Institute Compensation Survey received a

proportionally comparable response rate relative to the full CFA

Institute member/charterholder profile.

• Respondent profile was generally concentrated in a few

markets: the top five markets (the United States, Canada,

United Kingdom, China, and Switzerland) accounted for more

than 70% of respondents.

• Portfolio management and research roles are the most

ubiquitous roles across regions; however, there is a diverse

range of respondent roles.

• The majority of respondents receive a salary and cash

bonus, at a minimum. In the majority of cases, the highest

level of education achieved (in addition to the CFA®

designation) was a bachelor’s degree. 97% of respondents

hold the CFA designation.

33% of respondents work in large firms (5,000+ employees)

Portfolio Management and Research Roles

Portfolio Management Research

Employer Size (Headcount)

Americas

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Global Markets by Respondent Percentage (n=4,556)

24%

61%15%

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

3%2%

7%

16%

6%

3%

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

5,000or more

2,500to 4,999

500to 2,499

250to 499

50to 249

Fewerthan 50

8%7%

33%

15% 15%

22%

5


Respondent Profile Findings and Insights

• Functions Profile

• Experience Profile

• Firm Size Profile

• Industry Type Profile

• Seniority Level Profile

• Education Level Profile

6


Functions ProfileThe most prevalent function across the regions was portfolio management, and buy-side research roles was the most prevalent focus area.

Asia Pacific has a more balanced weighting between portfolio management (PM) and research roles.

The Americas and EMEA, however, both exhibit a higher proportion of roles in PM versus the research function.

Equities and fixed income were the two most prevalent areas within the portfolio management function. Within the

research function, the most prevalent focus area was buy-side research (76%) versus sell-side research (24%).

Job Functions by Region (n=15,006)


Portfolio Management Function by Focus Area (n=3,688)

Equities Fixed Income Multi-Asset Class

Individual and Trust Accounts Manager of Managers

Private Equity Other

Research Function by Focus Area (n=1,870)

Buy-Side Research Sell-Side Research

Portfolio Management

Research

Consulting

Risk Analysis / Management

Investment Strategy

Relationship Management -Wealth Management

Credit Analysis

Chief Investment Officer (CIO)

Trading

Accounting / Audit

Financial Planner

Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

Investment PerformanceAnalysis

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Information Technology

Research Sales

Compliance

Professor / Academic

Economist

Regulator

Financial Examiner

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

25%

12%

10%

7%

7%

5%

5%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

25%

1%

0%

25%

20%

19%

11%

7%

6%

12%

76%

24%

7


Experience ProfileThe most prevalent job experience range globally was 10 to less than 20 years, with the exception of Asia Pacific, which had a less experienced respondent profile.

The Americas region has the highest number of the most tenured

respondents (2,175), in part because CFA Institute was initially

established in the United States before expanding into other

global regions.

Asia Pacific varied from EMEA and the Americas in that there

were fewer tenured respondents (“20 years or more”) and a

greater amount of less experienced respondents (“0 to less than

5 years”). This shows a generally less experienced respondent

profile across the Asia Pacific region.

Years of Experience by Region and Respondent Percentage


Respondents’ Years of Experience by Region


0 to less than5 years

5 years to lessthan 10 years


20 yearsor more

10%

33%

38%

19%

0 to less than5 years



20 yearsor more

0

20

40

60

80

10027% 17%26%25%

60%

76%

55%54%

13%

7%

19%21%

8


Firm Size ProfileOne-third of respondents work for large firms with more than 5,000 employees.

The most prevalent firm size category across all regions

combined was 5,000 or more employees with 33% of

respondents, followed by 50–5,000 employees with 45% of

respondents. The remaining 22% of respondents work for firms

with fewer than 50 employees.

A reasonable amount of regional consistency was evident

across firm sizes; there was a proportionally similar number of

respondents across the various firm sizes.

Typically, larger firm sizes (500–5,000 employees) had among

the highest median total compensation relative to their region.

In the Americas, however, firm sizes of 50 to 249 employees

had the highest median total compensation ($170,000) relative

to other firm sizes. The highest median total compensation

amounts for EMEA and Asia Pacific for the same firm size range

were $131,000 and $91,000, respectively. (EMEA and APAC’s

highest median total compensation amounts for the same firm

size range were $131,000 and $91,000 respectively).

Respondents at firms with 50–249 employees are paid

consistently more than those at firms with 250–499

employees, as firms reach sufficient size to achieve

economies of scale while individual contributors can still

have a strong impact on performance.

Global and Regional Firm Sizes


Median Total Compensation by Firm Size

Global Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

AmericasEMEA

Asia

Pacific

5000 or m

ore

2500 to 4999

500 to 2499

250 to 499

50 to 249

Few

er t

han

50

5000 or more

2500 to 4999

500 to 2499

250 to 499

50 to 249

Fewer than 50

5000 or more

2500 to 4999500 to 2499

250 to 4995

0 to 24

9

Fewer th

an 50

AmericasGlobal Asia Pacific EMEA

0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

Few

er t

han

50

50

to 2

49

250

to 4

99

50

0 to

24

99

250

0 to

49

99

50

00

or

mor

e

Few

er t

han

50

50

to 2

49

250

to 4

99

50

0 to

24

99

250

0 to

49

99

50

00

or

mor

e

Few

er t

han

50

50

to 2

49

250

to 4

99

50

0 to

24

99

250

0 to

49

99

50

00

or

mor

e

Few

er t

han

50

50

to 2

49

250

to 4

99

50

0 to

24

99

250

0 to

49

99

50

00

or

mor

e

9


Industry Type ProfileThe asset management industry is the most common industry for respondents followed by wealth management and commercial banking.

More than two-thirds (66%) of respondents work in one of four

industries — asset management, private wealth management,

commercial banking, and investment banking.

35% of all respondents currently work full time in an asset

management organization in one of the following subfunctions:

mutual fund, hedge fund, private equity, venture capital,

investment firm, or real estate investment firm.

Firms with more than $100 billion in assets under management

(AUM), the largest category included in the study, employ about

30% of respondents in the asset management industry.

In the asset management industry globally, the median firm’s

AUM is $75 billion and the average firm’s AUM is $300 billion.

Only 20 firms have AUMs of more than $1 trillion. The median

AUM for respondents’ firms falls above the median for the

global asset management industry, but the median AUM for

respondents’ firms falls below the average for the global asset

management industry.

Industry Type by Respondent Count

Top 4 IndustriesAccount for ~66%of Respondents

Breakdown ofAsset Management

Industry Respondentsby AUMs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Less

tha

n $5

00

M

$50

0M

to le

ss t

han

$2B

N

$2B

N to

less

tha

n $1

0B

N

$10

BN

to le

ss t

han

$50

BN

$50

BN

to le

ss t

han

$10

0B

N

$10

0B

N o

r m

ore

N/A

Asse

t M

anag

emen

t

Priv

ate

Wea

lth M

anag

emen

t

Com

mer

cial

Ban

k

Inve

stm

ent

Ban

k

Con

sulti

ng F

irm

Insu

ranc

e

Asse

t O

wne

r

Bro

kera

ge

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

or S

oftw

are

Util

ities

(e.g

., O

il &

Gas

, Ene

rgy)

Acco

untin

g F

irm

Gov

ernm

ent

or R

egul

ator

Oth

er

14% 14%

17% 16%

7%

30%

35%

13%11%

7%5% 5% 4% 4%

2% 2% 2% 2%

7%

2%

10


Seniority Level ProfileMore than half of the respondents in the Americas are now at management levels and above.

The respondent profile in Asia Pacific skews toward lower seniority levels, with 53% at the entry or intermediate levels.

In the Americas, however, where CFA Institute was first established, more than half of respondents (54%) were at management

levels and above.

In EMEA, the respondent profile was in between these two regions.

Seniority by Region



0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Entr

y /

Sup

por

t

Inte

rmed

iate

Pro

fess

iona

l

Sen

ior

Pro

fess

iona

l

Man

agem

ent

Sen

ior

Man

agem

ent

Exec

utiv

e

Sen

ior

Exec

utiv

e

Entr

y /

Sup

por

t

Inte

rmed

iate

Pro

fess

iona

l

Sen

ior

Pro

fess

iona

l

Man

agem

ent

Sen

ior

Man

agem

ent

Exec

utiv

e

Sen

ior

Exec

utiv

e

Entr

y /

Sup

por

t

Inte

rmed

iate

Pro

fess

iona

l

Sen

ior

Pro

fess

iona

l

Man

agem

ent

Sen

ior

Man

agem

ent

Exec

utiv

e

Sen

ior

Exec

utiv

e

11


Education Level ProfileMost respondents have only a bachelor’s degree; however, we found little correlation between education level and total compensation.

Those respondents with an MBA had the highest median

total compensation ($195,000) followed by those with a

doctorate ($164,000).

Most respondents had only a bachelor’s degree; however,

counterintuitively, this population had a higher median and average

total compensation than those who also have a master’s degree.

Female respondents had an 8% higher relative instance of

master’s degree attainment versus male respondents. This is

consistent with other research that a PM who is a woman is more

likely to have a CFA charter than a man.

Almost half (49%) of all professors and academics held

doctorates (the most common role for respondents with doctoral

degrees). About 24% of CIOs held MBAs and about 40% of all

economists and regulators held master’s degrees.

Highest Level of Education by Respondent Count and Median Total Compensation (n=15,006)

Median Total Compensation (bottom) Count (top)

Highest Education Level by Gender

Bachelor's Master's MBA PhD

Female (n=2,026)

Male (n=8,093)

Bachelor’s

Master’s

MBA

PhD

0 $60k $120k $180k $240k $300k

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

54%

29%

15%2%

62%

21%

15%2%

12


Compensation Findings and Insights

• Total Compensation

• Incentive Opportunity

• Salary

13


Senior Portfolio Managers - Total Compensation Quartiles by Region (n=900)

High / Low Quartile Median

Portfolio Management - Total Compensation Quartiles by Region - All Seniorities (n=3,688)


Total CompensationAmericas senior PM pay is 4% higher than EMEA and 12% higher than Asia Pacific pay levels.

The Americas markets exhibit higher quartile and median total

compensation relative to both EMEA and Asia Pacific.

The high to low quartile pay differential is greatest in the Asia

Pacific region at 133%, versus 29% in the Americas and 35%

for EMEA. This range differential indicates a tighter, more

established pay range for both the Americas and EMEA.

Across all combined seniority levels, a similar trend was

apparent in pay levels across regions; however, the high to

low quartile ranges increased in all regions because of the

inclusion of junior- and executive-level respondents combined

in the sample.

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA0

$70,000

$140,000

$210,000

$280,000

$350,000

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA0

$70,000

$140,000

$210,000

$280,000

$350,000

14


Median Total Compensation for Management Level Roles by Regions

Individual Investment Relationship Management Portfolio Management

Institutional portfolio managers at the management and executive levels have higher pay than retail portfolio managers.

Pay for institutional PMs is higher than individual investment RMs

at the management and executive levels (although this was not

always apparent at more junior and intermediate levels).

Salary growth was higher, however, for the “retail” wealth

management PMs in both the Americas and Asia Pacific, which

is indicative of the fact that the wealth management industry

has been growing strongly in the United States and Asia Pacific.

Institutional PM Roles

As previously alluded to, the institutional business has been

subject to pressures in the United States and EMEA. The rise of

index funds and the outflows from active to passive strategies

have reduced firms’ revenues and put pressure on pay.

In Asia Pacific, however, institutional PMs have been able to add

strong value because of less efficient markets, strong economic

growth, and less transparent flow of information, which allows

analysts to add value through robust research.

Respondents’ median total compensation at management levels

are highest in Asia Pacific versus in the Americas and EMEA. They

also exhibit the highest premium over individual investment RM

pay relative to other regions.

0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000


900

245

350

900

+33%

+57%

+19%

700150

500

2813

3448

1500

2200

15


Total Compensation Quartiles by Markets with Buy-Side Research Roles at the Intermediate Professional Level (n=229)


The United Kingdom had the highest median total compensation for intermediate-level buy-side research roles.

The difference in median total compensation for these markets

was about $25,000 ($93,000–$118,000). The difference in

high-quartile total compensation across markets was similar at

$24,000 ($108,000–$132,000).

The United States had the highest range of pay (low to high

quartiles) at $95,000–$124,000. The United Kingdom low to

high quartile was $105,000–$132,000. The Canadian low to high

quartile range was $85,000–$108,000.

The United Kingdom pay premium was driven by variable incentive cash bonuses, which resulted in higher low-, median-, and high-quartile total compensation

United Kingdom United States Canada$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

$125,000

$150,000

16


*About 20% of respondents within HF and PE focus areas had profit-sharing or partnership agreements, which were not included in the total compensation calculation (as per our methodology). The sample size of this population was insufficient to draw conclusions on the impact of including these additional components of pay.

Senior real estate and hedge fund PMs have the highest median total compensation versus other PM focus areas.

There was sufficient data available for the United States portfolio

management market and function to compare roles across a single

seniority level, the senior professionals level.

Senior real estate (RE) and hedge fund (HF) PMs have the highest

median pay relative to other focus areas at this seniority level in

the United States. Private equity (PE) pay was also comparable,

exhibiting higher top-quartile pay versus HFs.*

HF pay tends to be more formulaic and based on annual returns,

unlike PE and RE for which funds are locked up for 5–10 years

in long-term plays. HFs also have been somewhat hindered by

strong equity markets, and they typically outperform with higher

levels of volatility in the markets.

US Portfolio Management - Senior Professionals Median Total Compensation by Focus Areas (n=414)

High / low quartile Median

RealEstate

HedgeFunds

OtherPrivateEquity

FixedIncome

Individual &Trust Account

Equities Manager ofManagers

Multi-AssetClass

Passive /Indexed

Quantitative

$125,000

$150,000

$175,000

$200,000

$225,000

17


US Research Function (All Seniorities) Total Compensation by Focus Areas (n=835)


Buy-side fixed-income research has a higher median total compensation than sell-side roles (~19%), but equity research roles were similarly compensated.

Across the United States, the fixed income focus area within the

research function had the highest median total compensation of

all focus areas in the function ($208,000).

Buy-side fixed-income research roles had higher median and

top-quartile pay as well as a greater range of pay versus sell-side

fixed-income roles.

Buy-side equity research roles had similar pay to the sell-side

roles, but the range of pay on the buy-side was wider with a

larger sample size.

Equities business’s profitability on both the buy and sell-side

has been hindered more recently because of technological

capabilities in which equities trading (which historically has

funded equity research divisions) is moving to low-cost, low-

touch automated channels.

This shift could be indicative of future trends in pay as

the majority of respondents on the United States sell-side

currently were focused on equities (73%). On the the United

States buy-side, the largest single focus area was also

equities (46%).

Fixed Income

Equities Hedge Quantitative Multi-Asset RealEstate

PrivateEquity

Other Equities FixedIncome

Multi-Asset

Buy-Side Research Sell-Side Research

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

18


Portfolio Management Function (All Seniorities) - Total Compensation Quartiles (n=756)


The top 10 United States metro areas (by respondent count) show Atlanta with the highest median total compensation.

The portfolio management function was used for the United

States metro-level compensation analysis because of the

available sample size.

Because of the high concentration of institutional PM roles in

both New York and Boston, their high quartiles exceed more

retail-oriented markets, such as Dallas–Fort Worth or Minneapolis.

Atlanta, GA New York,NY-NJ

Boston, MA Philadelphia,PA-N

SanFrancisco-

Oakland, CA

Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA

Minneapolis-St. Paul,MN-WI

Dallas-FortWorth, TX

Chicago, IL Denver-Boulder, CO

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

19


Total Compensation by China Geographic Area All Functions, Intermediate Professional Level (n=263)

High /Low Quartile Median

Total Compensation by China Geographic Area All Functions, Senior Professional Level (n=140)


Median pay levels in Hong Kong SAR are higher than mainland China metro areas, but the gap reduces at senior levels.

Median Total compensation and high to low quartile ranges vary

significantly between mainland China geographic areas.

At the intermediate level, the pay gap between Hong Kong

SAR and some geographies in mainland China was notable at

median levels. It ranged from a 36% premium in Hong Kong SAR

over Beijing to a 150% higher premium in Hong Kong SAR over

East China (excluding Shanghai).

The gap closes at the senior professional level, where median

Total Compensation in Hong Kong SAR was ~10% higher than in

Beijing and 24% higher than in Shanghai.

Hong KongSAR

Beijing Shanghai East China(excludingShanghai)

SouthChina

$25,000

$60,000

$95,000

$130,000

$165,000

$200,000

Hong KongSAR

Beijing South China Shanghai$25,000

$60,000

$95,000

$130,000

$165,000

$200,000

20


Intermediate Professional Level PM Median Total Compensation Analysis for the Portfolio Management Function (n=855)

Male Median Total Compensation Female Median Total Compensation

Management Level PM Median Total Compensation Analysis for the Portfolio Management Function (n=970)


The apparent portfolio manager pay disparity across gender appears to normalize with seniority.

In EMEA at the intermediate professional level of seniority,

women exhibit a premium in total compensation (4%) for the

PM role; however, this normalizes at the management level to a

2% premium.

In Asia Pacific, women are paid less than men (~10%) at the

intermediate level for PMs. The sample size was insufficient at

the management level in the Asia Pacific region for comparison.

Conclusions on gender pay comparison are directional given the

limited sample size, which did not allow for other factors—for

example, PM specialization, qualifications, years of experience,

and others—to be taken into consideration.

0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000


-9% +4%

-10%

0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000


Insufficientsample

size

+0%+2%

21





• Salary

22


Long-Term Incentive Prevalence by Seniorities

Type of Compensation by Respondent Prevalence - Global All Roles Versus Senior Management Roles

All Roles Senior Management Roles

Incentive OpportunityAlthough 17% of respondents did not receive a cash bonus, the majority without a cash bonus had profit-sharing or investment partnership awards.

Across regions, the vast majority of respondents (98%) receive at

least a salary, and 83% receive a cash bonus.

About 23% of respondents receive some form of a long-term

incentive; however, this rises to about 43% when evaluating only

the senior management population across combined regions and

functions, which is typical in the general financial services market.

Long-term incentives are not always standard forms of

compensation and depend on firmwide practices related to add-on

awards or mandatory deferral (postponement) of compensation.

Long-term incentive and mandatory deferral plans are continuing

to evolve because of the changing regulatory and economic

landscape. Typically, in the general market, total incentive is the

most prevalent practice for determining eligibility for long-term

incentives followed by title, level, and job grade.

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Entry / Support

IntermediateProfessional

Senior Professional

Management

Executive

Senior Executive

Senior Management

6%

9%

16%

32%

34%

42%

43%

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Base Salary Cash Bonus Long-TermIncentives

Profit Sharingor InvestmentPartnership

Other Compensation(Allowances)

88%

98% 97%

23%

43%

15%

83%

13%

6% 5%

23


Average Variable Compensation % of Salary


Intermediate-level respondents in Asia Pacific had higher average variable pay relative to EMEA and the Americas, which was driven by lower salaries.

Pay structure analysis shows differences across key functions

and seniorities. Relative to EMEA and Asia Pacific, the Americas

tend to have higher pay, driven by incentives, for management

and executive-level roles.

Absolute pay levels in Asia Pacific are typically lower relative

to other regions for a given role, especially at lower levels of

seniority. Variable pay (e.g., cash incentives) is often used

to improve pay differentiation and reward top-performing

individuals through employee incentive plans.

This practice is apparent in both the portfolio management and

research functions at the intermediate levels, for which base

salaries were lower in Asia Pacific relative to counterparts in

other regions.

Portfolio Management Research

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Intermediate Professional

Senior Professional Management Intermediate Professional

Senior Professional Management

26%

46%

21%

44%

54%

46%

88%81%

77%

31%

64%

34%

53%57%

69%

78%

64%69%

24





• Salary

25


*Source: AON 2018 Salary Increase Survey

YoY (2018–2019) Average Change in Base Salary


YoY (2018–2019) Average Change in Salary by Regions and Gender


SalaryRespondents’ average base salaries increased at a greater rate (YoY) than the general market’s rate of increase.

YoY average change in base salary showed some variance

across regions, from 4.9% (across the Americas) to 6.8% (across

Asia Pacific).

Respondent results in the United States (4.8%), Canada (4.9%),

and the United Kingdom (6.2%) are notably higher than the 2018–

19 annual salary growth rate of 3%, 2.8%, and 2.9% observed in

the general market* across the same countries. Respondents

may be more successful and earn higher salary increases than the

general market, or this result may indicate a bias in the respondent

profile (whereby those who recently experienced a strong rise

in salary responded in greater proportions to those with lower

increases, in anticipation of comparing their new salary alignment

and positioning against others).

Women in Asia Pacific had the highest average YoY salary

increase (7.6%) from any region. This was particularly apparent

at the entry and support levels of seniority, where average YoY

salary increases were about 10%.

0 2% 4% 6% 8%

Americas

EMEA

Asia Pacific

Change in Base Salary %

4.9%

5.6%

6.8%

0

2

4

6

8


4.8%4.9%

5.6%

5%

6.6%

7.6%

Ch

ange

in S

alar

y %

26


*Source: Institute for New Economic Thinking: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/brics-to-play-a-leading-role-in-driving-future-global-economic-growth

YoY (2018-2019) % Change in Average Salary (n=13,031) Displaying Markets with >100 Respondents

Average Value (5.7%)

For markets with greater than 100 respondents, Switzerland had the lowest YoY average change in base salary (3.3%) and India had the highest (9.8%).

When selecting markets with more than 100 respondents each, the range is from 3.3% to 9.8% for YoY average changes in

base salary from 2018 to 2019.

Growth is particularly strong in India, South Africa, Brazil, and China relative to other markets with more than 100 respondents.

This is consistent with economists’ view that the economies in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) continue

to be a key driver of global per capita growth and currently account for 30.4% of the world’s gross national product.*

(Russia had fewer than 100 respondents so is not represented in this exhibit. Their average YoY change in salary was 7.9%,

which was comparable to the general market, for which salaries were up about 7% in 2018.)

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

Ind

ia

Sou

th A

fric

a

Bra

zil

Mai

nlan

d C

hina

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

Gre

at B

ritai

n

Sin

gap

ore

Net

herla

nds

Can

ada

Aust

ralia

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Fran

ce

Sp

ain

Ger

man

y

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Switz

erla

nd

Strong BRICS EconomyYoY Wage Growth

Cha

nge

in S

alar

y %

27


Average YoY (2018-2019) Change in Base Salary by Function and Average 2018 Base Salary - Americas (n= 9,168)

Average YoY (2018-2019) % Change in Salary (LHS) Average 2018 Salary($)

In the Americas, financial planning and research functions have the highest YoY average change in base salary across functions.

The financial planning and research functions showed robust YoY

average base salary growth (5.8% to 6.6%) from 2018 to 2019.

The academic function experienced the lowest YoY average

base salary growth of all functions in the Americas with 2% YoY

growth; however, this academic function had the fourth-highest

average base salary across all functions.

Consistent across regions, the portfolio management function

had among the highest average base salary across functions

(top three in the Americas and Asia Pacific as well as top 10

in EMEA). The PM function had a relatively higher proportion

of management-level respondents (29%) within the sample,

accounting for 23% in EMEA and 20% in Asia Pacific.

0

2%

4%

6%

8%

Fina

ncia

l Pla

nner

Res

earc

h

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Fina

ncia

l Exa

min

er

Inve

stm

ent

Perf

orm

ance

Ana

lysi

s

Ind

ivid

ual I

nves

tmen

t R

elat

ions

hip

Man

agem

ent

Con

sulti

ng

Com

plia

nce

Econ

omis

t

Por

tfol

io M

anag

emen

t

Chi

ef In

vest

men

t O

ffic

er (

CIO

)

Trad

ing

Cre

dit

Anal

ysis

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Off

icer

(C

EO)

Inve

stm

ent

Str

ateg

y

Ris

k An

alys

is /

Man

agem

ent

Reg

ulat

or

Acco

untin

g /

Aud

it

Res

earc

h S

ales

Chi

ef F

inan

cial

Off

icer

(C

FO)

Pro

fess

or /

Aca

dem

ic

$100,000

$137,500

$175,000

$212,500

$250,000

Cha

nge

in S

alar

y % Averag

e Salary

28


In the Asia Pacific region, a strong degree of variance exists in YoY average change in base salary between top and bottom functions.

YoY average salary changes in Asia Pacific showed the greatest

range variance of any region (2.2% to 10.5%).

As in the Americas, the financial planning function in Asia

Pacific had the greatest YoY average base salary growth, at

more than 10%.

Key roles with YoY growth were financial planners (10.5%),

economists (8.2%), consulting (7.8%), credit analysis (7.5%),

and research (7.5%).

Financial planners’ salary growth rate in Asia Pacific and the

Americas appears to validate the increased focus on wealth

planning in the industry. The portfolio management function is

just behind the executive positions for average salary levels,

which is consistent with the Americas.

Average YoY (2018-2019) Change in Salary by Function and Average 2018 Salary - Asia Pacific (n=2,181)


0

3%

6%

9%

12%

Fina

ncia

l Pla

nner

Econ

omis

t

Con

sulti

ng

Cre

dit

Anal

ysis

Res

earc

h

Ris

k An

alys

is /

Man

agem

ent

Inve

stm

ent

Str

ateg

y

Reg

ulat

or

Res

earc

h S

ales

Acco

untin

g /

Aud

it

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Trad

ing

Chi

ef In

vest

men

t O

ffic

er (

CIO

)

Por

tfol

io M

anag

emen

t

Chi

ef F

inan

cial

Off

icer

(C

FO)

Inve

stm

ent

Perf

orm

ance

Ana

lysi

s

Ind

ivid

ual I

nves

tmen

t R

elat

ions

hip

Man

agem

ent

Com

plia

nce

Pro

fess

or /

Aca

dem

ic

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Off

icer

(C

EO)

Fina

ncia

l Exa

min

er

$50,000

$87,500

$125,000

$162,500

$200,000

Cha

nge

in S

alar

y % Averag

e Salary

29


In the EMEA region, strong variance exists in YoY average change in base salary across functions.

The research sales and trading functions both showed strong

YoY average change in salary growth (≥8%) from 2018 to 2019.

The financial planning function was also the highest function in

Asia Pacific in terms of YoY average base salary growth — this

function had more than 10% growth.

Research sales salaries in EMEA appear to be increasingly driven

by the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) demand

for research sales roles in the region.

The research function (position five in EMEA) was also

positioned within the top five functions across both Asia Pacific

and in the Americas.

In EMEA, the individual investment relationship management

function had a higher average salary than the portfolio

management function. EMEA had a larger proportion of

intermediate respondents within the portfolio management

function, which may have brought down average salary levels.

Average YoY (2018-2019) Change in Salary by Function and Average 2018 Salary - EMEA (n=3,657)


0

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Res

earc

h S

ales

Trad

ing

Con

sulti

ng

Cre

dit

Anal

ysis

Res

earc

h

Econ

omis

t

Inve

stm

ent

Perf

orm

ance

Ana

lysi

s

Acco

untin

g /

Aud

it

Fina

ncia

l Pla

nner

Por

tfol

io M

anag

emen

t

Chi

ef F

inan

cial

Off

icer

(C

FO)

Inve

stm

ent

Str

ateg

y

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Off

icer

(C

EO)

Ris

k An

alys

is /

Man

agem

ent

Pro

fess

or /

Aca

dem

ic

Reg

ulat

or

Chi

ef In

vest

men

t O

ffic

er (

CIO

)

Com

plia

nce

Ind

ivid

ual I

nves

tmen

t R

elat

ions

hip

Man

agem

ent

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Fina

ncia

l Exa

min

er

$50,000

$90,000

$130,000

$170,000

$210,000

$250,000

Cha

nge

in S

alar

y % Averag

e Salary

30


Appendix: About the Study

• Methodology and Sampling

• Glossary of Compensation Terms

• Compensation Analysis: Compensation Tables

31


1Qualified responses were those in full-time employment in the same position and firm for the full year (2018). 2Allowance is defined in the section “Glossary of Compensation Terms” 3 Profit-sharing is defined in the section “Glossary of Compensation Terms”

Methodology and SamplingMethodology

An online survey was conducted among all CFA Insitute members/

charterholders globally.

15,006 qualified1 responses were analyzed (representing a 9.5%

participation rate) and were then analyzed to create the 2019 CFA

Institute Compensation Study; this resulted in a margin of error of

±0.74% for a 95% confidence percentage.

• The survey requested data on numerous aspects of

compensation. In addition to covering base salary and total

compensation, the survey addressed the respondent’s level of

education and occupation. Information on the type and size of

the firm as well as the amount of assets under management

were included in the survey. The survey also captured annual

salary change data.

• Actual market pay levels may differ from those reported here

because a significant portion of the incumbents in the overall

market for some roles may not be CFA Institute members/

charterholders. In addition, this study is based on self-reported

data, which may differ from actual pay levels as a result of

respondents erroneously recalling actual pay levels.

• Compensation benchmarks have been created through the

analysis and aggregation of the survey submissions received

across geographies, functions, roles, seniorities, and various

scoping factors (e.g., years of experience, gender) where data

availability allows.

• The occupations, functions, roles, and seniority levels to be

tracked were defined precisely to provide greater consistency

of results.

Data Standardization

• The data were standardized to the extent possible, including

excluding data points that might distort the quality and

robustness of the results. This was accomplished by

including only

- individuals who were employed on a full-time basis

throughout 2018, and

- individuals who were in the same position at the same

company for the whole of 2018.

• Allowance2 amounts have been excluded from the total

compensation calculation given the small percentage of

participants who submitted values and the high degree of

variability across allowance types.

• Profit-sharing or investment partnership bonuses3 are excluded

from the total compensation calculation because of the high

variability in approaches from respondents, but they are

included as a separate compensation element for reference.

• All compensation elements and submissions have been

reviewed to confirm validity for inclusion in the compensation

calculation. Given the self-reported nature of the survey,

outlying data points and anomalies were evaluated and

assessed for reliability or exclusion (e.g., CEO or similar roles

with entry-level seniority, or individuals assumed to be covered

under expatriate pay arrangements).

32


Data Suppression and Anonymity

• The following sample size suppression rules have been applied

to the reported data, such that

- at a market level, suppression rules require a minimum of 30

respondents per market for data to be displayed for a given

function per level of seniority; and

- for additional scoped data slices within a market and

function (e.g., years of experience, gender) data are

presented for sample sizes of 10 respondents or more.

• These thresholds were set to provide participants with

the greatest amount of information while still protecting

the confidentiality of individual responses. Subsequently,

individual-level responses will remain anonymous.

• The sample sizes for some of the reported data are limited.

Consideration should be taken when interpreting the

data based on limited and smaller sample sizes, as the

results may not be representative of the total member/

charterholder population.

Data Interpretation

• Compensation components are calculated as median values

unless labeled otherwise.

• Compensation components are calculated independent

of each other (e.g., base salary and total compensation).

Therefore, total compensation may not always equal the sum

of total cash plus long-term incentives.

Defining the Terms

Allowance Amounts

Other compensation categories included in respondents’

submission included allowance amounts for the following:

- retirement contribution,

- transportation,

- health and welfare,

- education,

- other, and

- profit sharing or investment partnership.

Profit Sharing/Investment Partnership

The expected cash equivalent value of other incentives

(excluding stock options or restricted stock awards) granted for

2018 performance included the individual values of the following:

- profit-sharing agreements, and/or,

- share of practice profit if the participant is a sole owner or

partner, and/or

- investment partnership payments.

33


Glossary of Compensation TermsCompensation Components

Compensation Component

Definition for 2019 CFA Institute Compensation Study

Base Salary

2018 annual base salary rate (e.g., monthly salary multiplied by 12) as of 1 July 2018. Where applicable,

this includes fixed bonuses or other payments that are part of an annual salary (e.g., 13th- or 14th-month

salary). This excludes year-end bonuses.

Cash Bonus

Total cash bonus awarded for 2018 performance. This includes all cash payments related to the 2018

performance year, including commission payments and sales-related bonuses (in gross or pretax terms).

• Excludes prior-year deferrals paid out in 2018 and long-term incentive grants.

• For members/charterholders based in Japan, this includes any contributions to supplementary

retirement allowances plans (SRAP).

Total Cash

Calculated compensation component. Total cash is calculated by summing base salary and cash bonus.

Compensation components are calculated independently as median values unless labeled otherwise.

Therefore, total cash may not always equal the sum of base salary plus cash bonus.

Long-Term Incentives

Expected cash equivalent value of stock options granted for 2018 performance. This includes either

• The expected value communicated by the respondent’s firm, or

• If an expected value was not communicated, the amount equal to # shares x strike price x 0.25

(modified Black-Scholes value).

Expected cash equivalent value of restricted stock granted for 2018 performance. This includes the value

of restricted stock awards (or equivalent units) as follows: number of shares/units granted multiplied by

the price per share/unit at the time of grant.

Expected cash equivalent value of other long-term incentives (excluding stock options or restricted stock

awards) granted for 2018 performance. This includes the individual values of

• the portion of 2018 cash bonus mandatorily deferred,

• phantom stock, and

• performance units.

Total Compensation

Calculated compensation component. Total compensation is calculated by summing total cash plus long-

term incentives.

Compensation components are calculated independently as median values unless labeled otherwise.

Therefore, total compensation may not always equal the sum of total cash plus long-term incentives.

34


Compensation Component

Definition for 2019 CFA Institute Compensation Study

Allowances

Other compensation categories included in respondent’s submission, which included allowance amounts

for the following categories:

• retirement contribution,

• transportation,

• health and welfare,

• education,

• other.

Profit Sharing/

Investment

Partnership

Expected cash equivalent value of other incentives (excluding stock options or restricted stock awards)

granted for 2018 performance. This includes the individual values of:

• profit-sharing agreements, or

• share of practice profit for a sole owner or partner, or

• investment partnership payments.

Change in Salary

2018–2019

YoY change in base salary (2018–2019).

2019 annual base salary rate (e.g., monthly salary multiplied by 12) as of the most recent salary review

(typically March or April 2019). Where applicable, this includes fixed bonuses and/or other payments that

are part of an annual salary (e.g., 13th- or 14th-month salary). This excludes year-end bonuses.

Compensation Components (continued)

35


Seniority Level Definition

Senior Executive

• Firm leadership. Ultimate accountability for the firm, major functional area (e.g., portfolio

management, research), or line of business (e.g., asset management, wealth management) to the

board, owners, or shareholders.

• Drives strategic initiatives that have a material impact on firm results.

• Directs short- and long-term development of people across the firm.

• Typical titles include president, managing director, senior vice president, executive vice president,

and head of area.

• Experience for 15 or more years.

Executive

• Functional leadership. Accountable for a function or division within a firm.

• Covers the largest, most important. or most complex clients, territories, accounts, or internal

relationships, while also accountable for the function or division, including budget management.

• Directs short- and long-term department staffing needs and development at the overall function.

• Typical titles include managing director, senior vice president, head of area, and executive director.

• Experience for 15 or more years.

Senior Management

• Department manager with multiple layers. May also be the senior-most individual contributor.

• Accountable for multiple complex processes or programs, creates annual budget based on department

needs and strategy.

• Viewed as an advisor to functional leadership, negotiates change across direct area of responsibility

and others within the function.

• Directs short- and long-term department staffing needs and development.

• Typical titles include managing director, executive director, senior portfolio manager,

and senior private banker.

• Experience for 12–15 years.

Management

• Team manager of a small department or large team. May also be a senior individual contributor.

• Accountable for multiple processes or programs and may have input on the department’s budget.

• Influences timelines, expectations, and proactively negotiates across departments and sometimes

functional management.

• Develops staff for current and long-term department needs and opportunities.

• Typical titles include director, senior portfolio manager, and senior private banker.


Seniority Levels

36


Seniority Level Definition

Senior Professional

• Individual contributor and mentor to more junior staff. Accountable for the completion of assigned

deliverables with little day-to-day management.

• Meets less clearly-defined demands and influences junior colleagues.

• Experienced understanding of business lines and specialized discipline.

• Minimal people development, but may develop staff on specific projects.

• Typical titles include associate, assistant vice president, and associate director.


Intermediate

Professional

• Individual contributor. Accountable for the completion of assigned tasks and projects.

• Meets clearly defined demands and influence is limited to entry-level staff.

• Fundamental understanding of specialized discipline with no direct people development responsibilities.

• Typical titles include associate and supervisor.


Entry / Support

• Individual contributor. Accountable for the completion of assigned daily tasks and projects.

• Very little autonomy and discretion at this level of seniority. Not expected to have a breadth of expertise.

• Develops an understanding of the team structure and remit, but no leading or managing.

• Typical titles include analyst and senior analyst.


Seniority Levels (continued)

37


Function Title Function Description

Accounting / Audit

Provides accounting, process control, or tax advice to corporations, governments, or individuals.

Roles also examine data and provide actionable information on profitability, solvency, stability,

and liquidity.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)The highest-ranking officer in an organization. The position having ultimate responsibility for the

organization’s financial and strategic success.

Chief Financial Officer (CFO)Executive responsible for managing the organization’s financial affairs, including accounting, tax,

budgeting, and treasury. Typically reports to the CEO.

Chief Investment Officer (CIO)Executive responsible for the organization’s investment results. Oversees and directs all portfolio

management, research, trading, and related investment functions. Typically reports to the CEO.

Compliance

Ensures company compliance with the rules and regulations of regulatory agencies, company

policies, and procedures are being followed and that behavior in the organization meets the

company's Standards of Conduct.

Consulting

Responsible for activities related to traditional client-facing activities at professional services firms,

including audit, financial advisory, management consulting, risk, and tax services. In addition,

consulting services includes coverage for dedicated sales functions and operational roles.

Credit Analysis

Primarily focuses on analyzing the overall financial strength and repayment ability of individual

debt issuers, and on the specific features and covenants of individual bonds. Independently

conducts fixed-income research studies. Analyses may focus on individual securities or classes

of securities. Makes buy, sell, and hold recommendations.

Economist

Responsible for studying the structure, performance, and behavior of the economy; evaluating

data on economic conditions; identifying and evaluating economic trends and their impact on the

market; and formulating forecasts of economic developments.

Financial Examiner

Establishes, monitors, reforms, or enforces industry regulations to ensure that financial institutions

are operating legally and safely, in accordance with the regulations imposed on these institutions

by the chartering level of government or agency or industry association.

Financial Planner

Responsible for developing long-term financial plans for individuals and their families. Activities

include customizing wealth plans to reflect individual client investment objectives, tax constraints,

and trust and estate considerations.

Individual Investment

Relationship Management

Serves as a relationship manager, primarily providing investment management and other

wealth-related services (e.g., trust, deposit, credit), as appropriate to individual investors and

their families. May be referred to as investment consultant, financial adviser, private banker,

relationship manager.

Function Descriptions

38


Function Title Function Description

Information Technology Responsible for activities related to the control of all information systems and technology

capabilities, both internally and externally.

Investment Performance

Analysis

Responsible for gathering and evaluating internal investment performance data against

appropriate benchmarks. Also responsible for communicating investment performance results

internally and externally.

Investment Strategy

Responsible for developing investment ideas, investment themes, and asset allocation

recommendations that are used by other investment areas within the firm. This function is

responsible for generating ideas but is not responsible for managing actual funds or portfolios.

Professor / Academic Conducts lectures and seminars and performs research in a specific field of study.

RegulatorEstablishes, monitors, reforms, or enforces industry regulations on behalf of an industry

association or government body/agency.

Research / Investment /

Quantitative Analysis

Covers activities related to the research of securities, including the publication of written reports,

buying and selling recommendations, and industry coverage expertise.

Risk Analysis / ManagementFocuses on monitoring and assessing the firm’s risk exposures (e.g., market risk, credit risk,

operational risk) and on developing strategies to mitigate potential losses.

Research SalesResponsible for the sale of competitive product and pricing research, analysis, and monitoring of

market trends.

TradingResponsible for buying and selling securities, for a specific sector or a defined group of sectors.

Manages risk, profit and loss, limits, and trading books.

Function Descriptions (continued)

39


Currency: USD (000’s)

2018 Total cash 2018 Total compensation 2018 Salary

Demographic Segments

Num

ber of R

espondents

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

All incumbents 855 $85.2 $106.5 $124.3 $102.9 $87.0 $108.1 $125.8 $104.4 $69.5 $88.6 $102.6 $85.3

Years in Role

0 to less than 5 88 $87.9 $103.9 $120.9 $104.7 $88.7 $106.3 $125.1 $108.7 $70.1 $87.0 $98.0 $82.1

5 to less than 10 491 $81.8 $104.1 $121.3 $100.3 $83.7 $105.1 $123.5 $101.6 $66.4 $85.0 $100.0 $82.2

10 to less than 20 222 $89.8 $110.5 $128.9 $104.7 $89.8 $111.5 $131.2 $105.6 $72.3 $95.0 $109.7 $89.1

20 years or more 54 $96.2 $122.8 $139.0 $116.0 $104.2 $124.3 $140.0 $117.8 $87.9 $110.0 $125.0 $103.8

Region

AMERICAS 468 $94.6 $111.0 $127.4 $109.4 $95.9 $112.0 $129.4 $110.5 $77.2 $92.6 $108.0 $91.2

ASIA PACIFIC 106 $55.9 $90.9 $114.0 $87.6 $55.9 $94.2 $117.1 $88.9 $36.3 $63.6 $90.9 $64.9

EMEA 281 $76.1 $103.9 $120.2 $97.9 $78.0 $106.3 $124.0 $100.0 $66.1 $86.0 $101.5 $83.2

Gender

Male 730 $87.0 $107.3 $125.0 $103.7 $88.1 $109.4 $126.1 $105.0 $70.9 $89.7 $103.8 $86.2

Female 125 $77.2 $104.5 $118.5 $98.3 $80.9 $106.2 $124.0 $101.1 $62.0 $85.0 $98.7 $79.9

Compensation Analysis:Compensation TablesPortfolio Management (all areas) – Intermediate Professional

40





Num

ber of R

espondents

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

All incumbents 900 $136.8 $164.1 $185.0 $158.4 $140.4 $167.7 $190.0 $162.7 $96.1 $120.0 $141.2 $118.2

Years in Role

0 to less than 5 32 $145.0 $159.4 $181.7 $177.2 $152.8 $164.3 $181.7 $183.5 $95.5 $113.6 $125.2 $121.1

5 to less than 10 305 $153.4 $171.4 $200.0 $158.5 $155.9 $174.5 $205.0 $162.7 $100.1 $119.8 $140.0 $110.7

10 to less than 20 450 $118.0 $156.3 $181.0 $147.0 $118.1 $160.0 $184.8 $150.1 $92.0 $120.0 $140.0 $115.2

20 years or more 113 $131.3 $166.8 $185.3 $153.1 $139.0 $172.2 $190.0 $156.5 $100.2 $133.9 $153.1 $125.1

Region

AMERICAS 573 $145.0 $167.0 $190.0 $165.2 $150.0 $170.0 $193.0 $169.3 $102.5 $125.0 $147.1 $124.3

ASIA PACIFIC 76 $76.0 $152.4 $185.8 $135.6 $79.9 $152.4 $187.0 $138.4 $64.1 $88.7 $134.6 $97.7

EMEA 251 $129.9 $157.7 $179.0 $149.8 $136.0 $163.6 $183.1 $155.0 $92.1 $116.2 $133.5 $110.8

Gender

Male 779 $139.6 $165.0 $187.0 $160.0 $144.0 $168.1 $191.0 $164.1 $98.8 $121.7 $141.9 $120.0

Female 121 $118.1 $160.0 $177.0 $148.6 $121.7 $163.7 $182.5 $153.7 $88.6 $110.0 $130.0 $107.0

Portfolio Management (all areas) – Senior Professional

41





Num

ber of R

espondents

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

Low quartile

(25%)

Median (50

%)

High quartile

(75%)

Average

All incumbents 978 $200.0 $248.4 $315.0 $289.1 $211.0 $261.7 $350.9 $316.0 $137.9 $165.0 $200.0 $178.6

Years in Role

0 to less than 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5 to less than 10 80 $205.6 $259.0 $345.0 $330.2 $223.0 $280.0 $400.0 $376.7 $125.0 $153.4 $180.0 $179.0

10 to less than 20 593 $199.0 $247.1 $328.7 $298.5 $210.3 $265.0 $373.9 $327.5 $135.0 $159.5 $193.8 $177.7

20 years or more 302 $200.8 $247.5 $304.1 $252.8 $210.0 $259.5 $315.1 $267.2 $150.0 $178.0 $201.0 $178.2

Region

AMERICAS 701 $204.9 $250.0 $325.0 $290.9 $215.9 $265.0 $360.8 $316.9 $138.8 $167.3 $200.0 $173.8

ASIA PACIFIC 67 $201.8 $266.5 $348.0 $361.6 $201.8 $270.0 $394.4 $385.9 $148.7 $179.7 $204.2 $255.0

EMEA 210 $179.4 $228.3 $283.5 $259.5 $189.0 $250.6 $310.1 $290.4 $129.9 $155.4 $189.2 $170.0

Gender

Male 870 $200.0 $247.5 $315.0 $290.5 $210.9 $261.7 $350.9 $317.7 $137.2 $165.2 $200.0 $179.4

Female 108 $195.9 $255.2 $319.2 $277.3 $217.4 $262.7 $353.4 $302.6 $138.8 $160.2 $200.0 $172.4

Portfolio Management (all areas) – Management

42


cfa institute compensation study–executive summary

Documents