Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) CEO William Weldon received compensation last year valued at $25.1 million - a 22% increase - at the same time the company is planning to cut 4 percent of its workforce in its biggest restructuring ever. The executive received a base salary of $1.73 million, $7.7 million in stock options, and another $9.19 million in an annual performance bonus. Finally, the executive also received other compensation of $3.22 million with $118,653 in personal use of company aircraft and $29,753 for a personal car and driver.

Johnson & Johnson itself saw a rare decline in net income last year after it took restructuring charges of $528 million. The broad plan also called for the elimination of 4,820 jobs in an effort to boost their bottom line by cutting expenses. Sales jumped, however, on acquisition of Pfizer's large consumer health business. Shareholders clearly took note as this years proxy comes with one shareholder proposal on the subject of executive compensation. Like most others, this would be for a non-binding vote to approve compensation and policies used to set that compensation.

In the end, this compensation isn't as ridiculous as many others we've seen and it does tie pay to performance fairly well.

Visa Inc. is poised to be the largest initial public offering on record and many investors are set to make a lot of money. One of them is Chief Executive Joseph Saunders, who was named to the top spot last year. The executive will be set to receive the option to buy 831,444 Visa shares at the offering price, which is valued at around $11 million based on the expected increase of Visa shares over time.

Saunders will also recieve a grant of 12,025 shares worth around $475,000 and an $11.2 million salary and bonus for little more than ten months of work. Compensation experts insist that these numbers are far above average, but then again Visa has performed extremely well over the past couple of years. Others point to the fact that Saunders didn't receive equity awards last year while its peers grant equity on a regular basis- this may justify such a large award.

The past 10 months may have been short, but Saunders has also put a lot of work into laying the groundwork for a public offering. Meanwhile, he has also done well supervising the company's reorganization. Finally, it is worth noting that the MasterCard CEO received $10 million when his company IPO'd and that is a much smaller organiation. Combined, these factors suggest that the Visa CEO may not have been overcompensated at all.

Anheuser-Busch (NYSE: BUD) chief executive August Busch IV took a pay cut this year, receiving only $12.2 million in 2007. The compensation included a base salary of $1.2 million, a bonus of $2.5 million, $8.3 million in stock options, and $206,000 in other compensation, according to a proxy filing with the SEC. He also received other small perks like use of a company jet for him and his family members for business purposes and free admission to the company's theme parks. All in all, this compares to a total compensation of $12.7 million in 2006 - a 10% cut in pay.

The move comes after the Budweiser-maker has been struggling to boost sales with stagnant demand for beer in the United States. The stock did manage to rise nearly 10% in 2007 thanks to distribution deals that added import revenues. However, rising incredient costs is forcing a rise in prices that is curbing the growth. As a result, it was forced to lower its estimates for this upcoming year and faces some concern about its future direction. Regardless, it is good to see an executive that has his pay tied to company performance for once!

Merck & Co. (NYSE: MRK) chief executive Richard T. Clark received compensation valued at $14.5 million in 2007. The 80 percent raise shocked many investors in a year when the drugmaker took a $4.85 billion charge to settle lawsuits stemming from its former painkiller Vioxx. In fact, shares in the company recently hit a new 52-week low amid continuing concerns about lawsuits while executive compensation only seems to be rising.

Most of Clark's compensation came in the form of stock options that were worth $8.23 million while he also received $4.31 million as part of an incentive plan. In addition to his base salary on top of that, he also received $51,024 for a home security system, $18,686 in unspecified commuting costs, $10,125 in company matches to his retirement plan and $1,128 for unspecified aircraft use. At least shareholders can be comforted by the fact that he didn't run up as high of a personal jet cost as his peers!

In all fairness, Clark did take the reins after Merck was forced to withdraw its Vioxx painkiller from the market and faced tens of thousands of lawsuits. However, few can still justify rising executive compensation given the stock's steep declines in recent months. Luckily, the AFL-CIO - which holds 1,300 shares - agrees and is now calling for a shareholder advisory vote on compensation. We'll see how far that makes it on April 22nd...

Congress questioned three prominent financial executives today about the huge paydays that they had earned despite sharp losses for shareholders. The three executives included Stan O'Neal of Merrill Lynch, Charles Prince of Citigroup, and Agelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial. The first two lost their jobs as a result of the decline while Mozilo ended up being bailed out via an acquisition by Bank of America. All of these executives took home enormous pay packages on the backs of shareholders, but claimed that their pay was grossly misrepresented by the media.

The Congressional committee members suggested that most Americans are living in a world where economic security is precarious and there are real economic consequences for failture. But America's top executives seem to be living by different rules. So, the question becomes: When companies fail to perform should they give millions of dollars to their senior executives? The executives responded by bringing up how well the company's performed under their rule before problems hit. They also argued that their actions taken when things went bad would have been taken even if things were going just fine.

One of the biggest issues raised was with the timing of their stock sales. Regulators claimed that they sold stock at a high and ended up making millions as a result. The executives countered that they reported their sales ahead of time to the public through various SEC filings and that meant transparency for shareholders. Moreover, many of the executives still held a vast amount of their personal wealth still invested in the company, and the selling was simply part of a scheduled plan that happened to occur before the market turned.

In the end, this meeting showed many Congressional members that executive compensation isn't all that unreasonable given the great performance of the companies in the past. As one member said, there are no villains present in the room; no fraud was committed; and nothing was done wrong. The problems experienced with this company were simply the result of a turning economy that some risk mismanaged that was industrywide.

A recent report put out by Congress criticized top banking industry executives who were paid hundreds of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses while their companies were burned by the mortgage market meltdown. The report comes just days before Henry Waxman is expected to question Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide, Charles Prince from Citigroup, and Stan O'Neal from Merrill Lynch in a hearing of his Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The meeting is designed to determine if the level of compensation is justified considering the wide losses realized by shareholders who own the companies they manage.

Waxman is expected to criticize the executives whose companies lost a combined $20 billion in the second half of 2007 alone for taking such high compensation packages. Mozilo received a reported $120 million in compensation while O'Neal left Merrill Lynch with an estimated $161 million after leaving the brokerage with its largest ever loss. All three were eventually ousted from their companies, but not before receiving such large compensation packages. These striking discrepencies between pay and performance shocked shareholders and regulators while boards struggled to justify them to shareholders.

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..