It's become a staple of the financial media: scour regulatory filings to ferret out all the perks that top corporate executives enjoy. The laundry list makes for a great read.

The Chicago Tribune, for example, recently ran an article detailing "eight of the most outrageous perks given to executives in U.S. history." The list included some of the great old chestnuts of the genre. Tyco paid half of the $2 million tab for the CEO's second wife's 40th birthday. Shaw Group paid an ex-CEO $15 million not to compete, for two years after he died. Tyson Foods spent $203,675 having employees clean five homes owned by Don Tyson's family and friends. Apple gave Steve Jobs a Gulfstream and then reimbursed him when he used it for corporate reasons. 

More recently, Crain's noted this about Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia: "Last year, as MSLO accrued $10 million in losses, the founder received nearly $6 million in compensation. She also billed shareholders for such things as her personal trainer ($30,000), weekend driver ($56,000), household expenses and company activities at her Westchester County estate ($200,000), and salaries for her daughter ($400,000) and sister-in-law ($200,000)."  We noted Bank of America's executive housing perk that saved Barbara Desoer a lot of money, to the tune of $533,000.

Here's a list of some of the most interesting perks doled out in 2010. 

In tough times, these examples can stoke controversy at annual meetings. Boards need to be aware of how certain perks will be perceived, and the overall economic context in which they are giving the perks. Many boards have actually cut back on the most egregious perks, many of which were related to golden parachute-like severance deals. And after leveraged buyouts, many boards cut the use of corporate jets for personal reasons. 

Boards indeed have to balance the need to retain top executives with the risks that perks represent. 

At the executive level, many brow-raising perks really aren't all that valuable. Say the company pays for a dog-walking service. It may be seen as outrageous, but the monetary value is not usually that great. Boards may want to consider simply paying more to allow the executive to cover the cost. 

This brings us to the real issue that critics would be wise to focus on most of all: executive pay. Perks are interesting, but at many companies the compensation issues are much more profound. Hopefully, they'll remain the focus of the most savvy shareholders. - Jim