Apple Inc. (NDAQ: AAPL) shareholders approved a non-binding resolution Tuesday asking the board of directors to give shareholders input on executive compensation. Preliminary results of the voting were not immediately availabe, but the proposal required a simple majority to pass. Meanwhile, another shareholder proposal designed to create a board committee on sustainability and environmental protection was rejected.

The AFL-CIO - the leading organization focused on executive compensation - urged shareholders to demand a say-on-pay commenting that the U.S. system for paying chief executives is broken. The organization has successfully pushed for such votes in many companies with great success. Steve Jobs joked after the proposal was brought forth, "I'm hoping the say on pay proposal will help me with my dollar a year salary!".

Meanwhile, many experts continue to question the real value of such proposals given the fact that they are simply advisory votes and not binding votes. The board can still decide to pay executives more than shareholders recommend and still face a relatively small chance of being ousted as a result. The positive side is that this fear alone is keeping board members from issuing huge amounts of pay, but then again these proposals have only passed in companies without problems so far...

MBIA Inc. (NYSE: MBI) shareholders may be hurting after the bond insurer posted a $1.9 billion loss, but executives are set to receive salary increases and "retention awards" of up to $2.3 million. The company's board of directors approved salary increases of 60% for some executives while awarding executives that stay with the company an as much as $2.3 million in "retention awards". MBIA justified the move saying they needed to keep certain employees while the raises only offset cuts to bonuses this year as a result of the stock price dropping more than 75%. Where can shareholders sign-up to be paid back the money they lost out on recently?

MBIA underwrites insurance policies that promise to repay bondholders when bond issuers default. The company currently has $680 billion in debt and has been threatened by ratings agencies as decaying credit quality has put its credit rating at risk. Any drop below AAA would almost certainly eliminate the firm's new business, putting pressure on its existing loans and its ability to raise additional capital through equity. Many investors like Bill Ackman are even questioning whether or not the company can stay alive and are shocked they are even granted an AAA rating at times like these.

Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO) chief executive Neville Isdell made a cool $21.7 million in 20007, according to a regulatory filing made with the SEC today. The compensation package included a base salary of $1.6 million, $6.6 million from a non-equity inventive plan, $12.6 million in stock and option grants, and $817,066 in other compensation (which included $341,849 in personal use of the company aircraft). Muhtar Kent is set to succeed Isdell as chief executive and received a 57 percent increase in pay in 2007, making a cool $8.7 million as chief operating officer of Coca-Cola.

All in all, much of this compensation is tied to performance with Coca-Cola's net income rose 18 percent to $5.98 billion on revenues up 20 percent to $28.9 billion. Warren Buffett is the largest holder and is well known for his impeccible corporate governance practices that have led to this strong pay-for-performance trend at this company. Investors can track these compensation amounts, trends and other data at ExecutiveDisclosure.com.

A recent preliminary review of 2007 compensation deals for executives at public companies found that the median value of CEO bonuses actually declined 4.5 percent last year. However, the decrease was small when compared to the 27.1 percent increase in 2006. The research report also found that the overall number of executives receiving bonuses increased slightly, which may have been the reason for the decrease in the median number. And finally, the study found that the salaries for CEOs increased 8.6 percent between 2006 and 2007.

Many attribute the decline in bonuses to the recent economic slowdown and credit market turmoil, which sparked increased scrutiny during the past proxy season and is only like to continue going forward. Some executives are even being questioned by the government over their exorberant pay during times when there company's shareholders were losing money hand over foot. This may also be the reason behind increased salaries, as they are not as heavily scrutinized by bonuses but can still be increased to "retain executive talent". It will be interesting to see just how much the upcoming proxy season affects compensation..

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.