A new study on executive compensation suggests that only 39 percent of big investors think the  way US companies reward top executives has helped improve corporate performance while most believe that top managers have too much influence in setting their own pay. Meanwhile, 71 percent of investors thought that executive pay plans were overly influenced by company managements and 49 percent of directors shared that view. Overall, however, 65 percent of directors thought that executive pay models helped make company perforamnce better, which comes in stark contrast to investor sentiment.

A US Congressional panel is also taking a look at executive compensation practices in order to determine if they are excessive. The committee was established amid sky-high compensation packages for executives at companies hurt by the subprime crisis. The meeting was delayed due to the death of Agelo Mozilo's mother, but has been rescheduled to March 7th where he and former heads of Citigroup and Merrill Lynch are expected to testify before Congress. We'll see who's side Congress finds itself on after those discussions...

The survey, conducted by Watson Wyatt, solicited responses from 162directors who served on the compensation committees at 230 publicly traded companies. Also polled were 72 investment and pension fund managers and other investors.

Discover Financial Services CEO David Nelms received compensation valued at $21.8 million in 2007, according to a regulatory filing with the SEC. The newly public company was a spin-off from Morgan Stanley just weeks before mortgage defaults and illiquid credit markets caused mayhem on the financial sector. The chief executive received $900,000 in case salary, $2.75 million in bonuses and $18.14 million in stock awards and options. Executives did not receive any perks, however, except for the chief financial officer that got $11,429 including relocation expenses, a gym membership and access to the executive pantry. Meanwhile, shareholders received -44% return on their investment since Discover became spun off last year.

United Technologies Corp. CEO David took home $65 million in total compensation in 2007, according to regulatory filings made with the SEC. The executive's salary and bonus grew just over 5 percent, but his total compensation went up 71 percent because he exercised more stock options in 2007 than ever before. David ended up making about $1.25 million a week, or $178,082 per day, running the company. This is about twice as much in one day as most employees made during an entire year! But was he worth the money? Well, United Technologies stock soared 22 percent last year, boosting its total market valuat by $13.5 billion. This compares to an overall market increase of onyl 6.4 percent, so it looks like the compensation was fair this time around...

James Wells III, president and chief executive of SunTrust Banks, received compensation valued at around $4.6 million in 2007, according to a regulatory filing made with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The executive received $1 million in base salary and $600,000 in non-equity incentives along with options valued at $2.7 million. The package was topped off with $169,944 in other compensation, including financial planning services, use of company aircraft, club memberships, and 401(k) matching contributions.

SunTrust shareholders weren't so lucky as the company posted a $510 million loss tied to the purchase of securities from moeny market funds managed by a subsidiary and from structured investment vehicles. It purchased these securities because of the lack of an active debt market. Banks have been forced to reduce the value of securities in illquid invesmtents, but SunTrust tried to purchase securities at actual value and then record the loss instead. The bank also recorded $45 million in write-downs associated with other securities and mortgages.

UAL Corporation (NDAQ: UAUA) received a letter from Teamsters on Tuesday demanding that it overhaul its executive compensation practices. The United Airlines parent company union members joined with shareholders on the demands and threatened to withhold votes from directors serving on the subcommittee that set UAL's high executive pay.

The dissidents complain that just after a three-year bankruptcy, UAL rewarded its CEO with $39.7 million in compensation - a number that many saw as far too high. This is especially true given the fact that many employees were foced to take on the company's pension obligations and thousands of workers have lost their jobs or suffered cuts in their compensation, pensions, or benefits. However, others argue that such pay is necessary in order to retain a good CEO for such a risky company. We'll see what happens now...

A new study found that during the past eleven years, revenues among U.S. publicly traded companies increased 93 percent while the highest paid executive's compensation increased 24.7 percent. However, during the most recent 12 months, the study found that revenues increased just 2.8 percent while executive compensation increased 20.5 percent. Clearly, this can be attributed to the downturn in the economy, but it only further highlights the fact that executive compensation still isn't tied to corporate performance as it should be in an ideal scenario.

Fortunately, boards of directors are trying to change up the trend. The study showed that compensation continued to trend away from a guaranteed base salary towards a compensation package consisting of stock options and restricted stock awards. Unfortunately, compensation experts often fail to set the standards high enough to make any difference - free stock is an incentive, but executives are still guaranteed a healthy base because the options are so in-the-money. There have only been a few companies who have gotten it right by setting staggered option rewards with higher strike prices.

The study reflects data from 45 publicly traded companies randomly selected from about 6,500 companies that report compensation data to the SEC.

Morgan Stanley chief executive John Mack is set to receive around $1.6 million in salary and other compensation for the last fiscal year despite profits in the company being nearly halved. The executive announced that he would waive his annual bonus but still agreed to receive the raise in pay despite shares dropping a shocking 57 percent. Mack received $800,000 in salary and $399,153 in other compensation as well as more in stock awards. Shockingly, he also managed to rack up $355,000 in personal use of his corporate jet alone! The move comes in contrast to that of other Wall Street bosses like Bear Stearns bosses that forewent all bonuses after tha bank posted a $1.9 billion writedown and the resignation of Stan O'Neal at Merrill Lynch.

News Corporation's (NYSE: NWS) James Murdoch - son of chief executive Rupert Murdoch and head of the company's European and Asian operations - is set to receive a salary of around $3.4 million this year, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Many view this as a fair compensation, but others have been complaining that the heir is receiving far too much.

The widely-expected future successor is also set to receive a cash bonus targeted at 75% of his base salary with a maximum of 100% of his base salary if certain objectives are met. He is also eligible, like other executives, to a bnus based on the company's adjusted earnings per share, which can reach $12.5 million a year. In addition, he will receive 400,000 cash-settled restricted stock units that begin vesting in January along with other perks.

A recent survey conducted by executive compensation consultants Steven Hall & Partners reveals that stock options are underwater at more than a third of the largest 500 U.S. corporations. The problem is that the market experienced a sudden downturn and left executives unable to reprice their options without shareholder approval. Since that is hard to get, there has been a growing number of executives leaving their companies to seek employment at other company's offering options at today's bargain-basement prices.

The situation leaves many boards in a difficult position since they have to take action to retain executives but do not want to upset shareholders. Executives require more shares in order to stay on board while additional shares being issued dilutes shareholders and carries a costly charge to earnings. The industries most affected are airlines, automotives, financials, builders, pharmaceuticals, telecoms and retailers. It is up to boards now to evaluate the best options and mediate between shareholders and management.