As if it wasn't bad enough, the debate about executive pay might soon switch into overdrive.

American chief executives saw the value of their stock options more than triple last year thanks to a booming market. That's on top of those generous pay rises and bonuses, according to this report.

The average in-the-money value of unexercised stock options for CEOs at higher-performing companies went from $13.8 million in 2005 to $42.6 million. CEOs at lower-performing companies were in the money too. They experienced a 5 per cent increase, from $19.7 million in 2005 to $20.6 million last year. And the median in-the-money value of unexercised stock options for all CEOs in the analysis skyrocketed 47 percent, to $28 million, in 2006. The total net increase for the CEOs was nearly $2 billion.

It's important to put these figures in some context. The pay rises from stock options are the result of the US stock market reaching new heights in 2006.

Still, the gains come at a time when the overall US economy seems to be slowing down. Last week's Frantic selling by investors might reflect a gnawing anxiety that the good times are about to end.

As the Observer points out, the US economy grew at just 2.2 per cent annual rate in the final quarter of 2006, instead of the 3.5 per cent suggested by the government's earlier estimate. Orders to US factories were down almost 8 per cent in February and concerns about the housing market slowdown have been fuelled by a higher than expected defaults on so-called 'sub-prime' mortgages.

If that trend continues, people will find it harder to make ends meet so a huge increase in pay for CEOs will not go down well with the broader public.

The other question is whether it will go down that well with investors. Maybe not if Graef Crystal's piece in Bloomberg is anything to go by.

According to Crystal's analysis, companies that make mega-grants of options underperform the market. He suggests that the huge increase in costs associated with those grants seems to overwhelm any extra motivation for CEOs that those grants provide.

True, his analysis only covered 67 companies. But it raises questions that might be worth looking at in more detail.