side executives remuneration is not a recent development. Only because of the financial crisis in the West and “occupation Wall Street Movement, executive compensation in the current stage it is particularly striking. A U.S. company executive compensation history of the development (Phase I: 1935, executive compensation, rapid growth, but no regulatory measures In 1910, American Tobacco, U.S. Steel two large-scale enterprises for the first time the executive compensation and corporate operations of the combination, in addition to give the fixed wages of executives, also the company’s profits as part of the remuneration paid to executives, which can be understood the beginning of the incentive compensation system, but also opened the prelude of soaring executive pay. 1930, with the ordinary company mergers and litigation revealed that the president of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation  BethlehemSteel remuneration in 1929 reached $ 1,600,000, and in the previous 10 years, the salary every year in more than one million U.S. dollars. Subsequently, many large companies have also been found that executive compensation is already in more than one million U.S. dollars.  Phase II: 1935 to 1980 mid-term, growth in executive pay is not obvious at this stage, the public focus on executive compensation weakened. Frydman & Sak in  2008 statistics show that, from the mid-1930s to the 1950s or so, sample data, the median executive pay from about $ 90 million reduced to about $ 75 million. Jensen, & Murphy  1990 statistics and calculations show that :1934-1939, the New York Stock Exchange listed company CEO salary plus bonus, an average of $ 882,000  $ 1988, from 1982 to 1988, the wages of comparable companies, the CEO plus bonuses of $ 843,000  of $ 1988. According to this calculation, the CEO’s cash salary plus bonus in 50 years does not rise but drop. Jensen, & Murphy  1990 also compared the change in speed of the average worker and the CEO’s total remuneration that is not much difference between the two.  three stages: the third since the mid-1980, executive pay is rapid growth , the absolute amount of executive pay began to grow rapidly since the mid-eighties of the last century, the growth rate much faster than the general staff, and continue to cause concern and debate. Hall & Murphy,  2003 study shows that the average American CEO wages and the wages of ordinary workers rose from 100 in 1999 to 2000 about 350 times -570 times. The Mishel  2009 study: the CEO of the average wage and the ratio of the average wage of the average worker in 1965 for 24 times, 35 times in 1979, 1989, 71 times, 299 times in 1999. This period the rapid growth of executive compensation to a large extent the result of assets such as stock options income ratio continued to improve in the salary structure. Gradually increase the share of long-term compensation and stock options since the late 1950s; widely associated with executive compensation and securities market in the 1980s; from the early 1990s, stock options, long-term returns began to replace the wages and bonuses to become the largest part of the remuneration ; stock options accounted for about 2000 peak; long-term returns in 2005, accounting for 35%. In addition, from the beginning of the 1950s, cash income tax rate is a substantial increase, and long-term compensation and stock options as capital income tax rate is very low, the tax policy has played a significant role in the use of long-term compensation and stock options. Second, the controversy over the high pay of executives  a reasonable pay: executives high salaries coordination of the principal – agent conflicts of interest, and promote the enhancement of the performance of the company Jensen, & Murphy,  1990 statistics of the 1974 ~ 1988 years 1400 listing of the company’s market value and these listed companies 2505 CEO’s pay, which the largest 250 enterprises carried out the sensitivity analysis of think: these companies per $ 1000 market value of the change, CEO of the cash and prizes change amounted to 6.7 cents, plus stock options and other assets income, changes in CEO pay amounted to $ 2.59. This means that a billion profit for the company executives cash salary increases to $ 6,700, a waste of a billion, executives loss is the number. Waste of money to make money much executives personally as an agent to be cost-effective. This conclusion raises two questions: First, the executive pay changes and the company’s value changes in this period is so weak, how can we ensure the company’s CEO is not a bureaucratic as the management company? Second, the the shareholders  company owner is concerned about the growth of the market value of, or to pay the cost of executive pay to go? “The company’s remuneration policy is a successful company, one of the most important factor in this not only because of the salary determines the behavior of managers, but also determine a company to attract what managers. Protest on executive compensation is very harmful … if the pay and performance correlation is very strong, is not it should be paid to the executives high salaries? answer is yes. Jensen, & Murphy  1990 clearly stated: the executives to have a lot of company stock. Most of the discourse of the later support the high salaries of corporate executives, most of them at the top of this framework. During the 1990s, discussions on executive compensation, the majority of academic research that the total compensation and salary structure is better co-ordination of the principal – agent conflicts of interest, promote the enhancement of the performance of the company.  two high salaries irrational: exacerbate social injustice, and lead to dissatisfaction of the general public of the financial crisis on executive compensation and firm performance is poor, mainly in that the absolute amount of executive pay is too large. Fortune magazine  the Fortune 1936 random survey: the survey sample, 54.5 percent of people believe that executive pay is too high, 5.8 percent think rates are too low. Executive compensation and staff of the pay gap is too large, and very easily lead to fairness and social discontent. Bebchuk & Fried,  2004 based on the theory of management rights, the board of directors and executives believe in the American business community and the vast majority of executive compensation researchers conducted the assumption of the fair trade does not exist. Senior management personnel management authority over the Board of Directors, and the “rent-seeking from its management company, the failure of corporate governance structure so that management” captured “by the Board of Directors. After the outbreak of the financial crisis, the considerable amount of research literature that the pay system did not reach the theoretical expected results, and asset income in the salary structure to increase the systematic risk of the economy, which is an important incentive to lead to a series of corporate governance scandals and financial crises a. Due to the high degree of asset securitization in the United States, the strong correlation, so that the risk of accumulation, especially in the high leverage and high financial securities are likely to cause systemic financial risks. This argument is to some extent, to get official recognition. For example, the April 2009 G20 London summit of the Financial Stability Board issued practice principles on sound remuneration  FSB2009, begins with the relationship between the financial executives high salaries and the financial crisis, wrote: “large financial institutions pay behavior is one of the factors leading to the financial crisis that began in 2007. high salary is only based on short-term high profits, while ignoring the long-term risk of financial enterprises. the current salary structure of the excessive risk behavior to be magnified, and a serious threat to the international financial order so that financial firms do not have the ability to circumvent the loss in risk occurs. (Author: the State Council Development Research Center of Information Center)