Will HSBC shareholders stage a revolt?

The argument had arisen over a three-year �25m pay deal awarded to a US director, William Aldinger.

The TUC had urged shareholders to register their protest at the firm's annual general meeting on Friday.

But in the end, the firm's resolution on executive pay was approved by more than three-quarters of shareholders.

Last week, a lucrative 'golden parachute' deal for the chief executive of pharmaceuticals firm GlaxoSmithKline, Jean-Pierre Garnier, was voted down by its shareholders.

'The going rate'

HSBC bought Household International, the US company run by Mr Aldinger, last year.

Mr Aldinger's pay package was approved at an EGM held in February, but recent controversy over executive pay had brought the deal back under the spotlight.

HAVE YOUR SAY How does a golden parachute inspire a director to be successful if they will get the bonus anyway? Richard, Wales Send us your comments

Ahead of the AGM, the bank had written to its 50 largest shareholders defending the pay package.

Speaking at the meeting, chairman Sir John Bond said: "We aim to pay according to the remuneration level in the countries in which we operate.

"Our policy is to pay the going rate."

In the end a resolution on HSBC's executive pay was approved by 3.8 billion proxy votes, while just more than a billion either voted against or abstained.

Mr Ardinger was re-elected to the board with 4.2 billion in favour and 725 million either against or abstaining.

'Excessive' deal

The TUC and corporate governance advisers Pirc had campaigned against the deal ahead of the meeting.

"I think the real problem with this package is its excessive nature," the head of Pirc, Alan MacDougall, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"It breaks two or three of the main guidelines that UK shareholders have developed to judge the adequacy of executive remuneration.

"I think HSBC made a mistake on this one. They've risked the reputation of the bank by agreeing terms which in the UK market do look excessive."