Bertrand and Mullainathan (2001) investigate the salary of CEO and compare it with luck by considering several situations where they were just found lucky to be at the right place at the right time. This is because, taking the example of the oil industry, when the oil prices fluctuates around the world, there is a fluctuation in the home market also, and this is nothing to do with the CEO who just happened to be at the right company. Defining luck here is considering situations where the conditions of the market and industry in which the company exists are beyond the control of the CEO. This is a fact that when the demand and supply scenario changes on its own around the world, there is an impact on the home country as well, because in today’s world the markets are interconnected with each other with substantial investments in each other’s territory. The authors notice that when the market is good and the company is doing good in making profits, the shareholders are less likely to focus on the CEO pay package, but when there is a slack period with a lot of firms registering losses, it is inevitable that every shareholder including stakeholders will point out that the executive compensation to the CEO is excess and needs to be reduced. However, they have also found out that firms with a large corporate shareholder base with an expert board do not pay easily to CEO’s for luck, but they probably link it to the performance gap which is mostly missing in many firms when the high pays are decided. Shan and Walter (2014) however argue that shareholders who have experienced huge and substantial wealth creation while having a CEO, even if the firm is just being lucky, they hardly interfere into the CEO compensation issue which others outside the firm and minority shareholders have been raising since long.