The directors of Barclays Bank are probably still recovering from what must rate as one of the bank's most troubling annual meetings. One-third of the shareholders voted against the board's remuneration report and witnessed the chairman, Marcus Agius, pledging to cut executive pay and distribute more cash to shareholders.
The events at Barclays are part of what is becoming known as the 'shareholder spring', which has also seen a shareholder revolt over excessive executive pay at Citigroup and is part of a trend of investors demanding to know why they are not getting better value from their investments.
On April 27, almost one-third of Credit Suisse shareholders voted against the bank's pay plan, amid angry comments about 'greed' from individual investors.
In many ways, what we are seeing today is a delayed reaction to the financial crash of 2008, when firms' share prices plunged while executives suffered no pay-cut pain.
Indeed, high levels of executive pay have become the hallmark of how many big corporations work. This is reflected in a Harvard University study that found, in the period 2001-03, the income of the five most senior executives equalled 10 per cent of corporate earnings.
If ordinary employees are left with the impression that their pay and job security declines as executive pay improves, there is a reason: the US-based Institute for Policy Studies found that chief executives who cut the most jobs in the wake of 2008 received an average 42 per cent pay hike in 2009.
And although there was an overall dip in top executive pay after the 2008 meltdown, it did not take long for CEOs to get back on course.