Sub-station

ShIP to

Companies can spend millions on security measures to keep executives safe  -  wifi home security-security system supplier- home security system- surveillance system manufacturers-Ansjer cctv English

Companies can spend millions on security measures to keep executives safe - wifi home security

by:Ansjer cctv     2020-02-22
Companies can spend millions on security measures to keep executives safe  -  wifi home security
In 2012, when he resigned as chief executive of Lockheed Martin, his base salary was $1.
8 million, bonuses and rewards, the use of the company's aircraft and another expensive benefit: personal safety.
Lockheed paid $1.
3 million security in last year as CEO Stephen so in addition $407,000 last year Stevens appointed in 2011 terrorist of the of al-
The objectives of al-Qaida continue to serve as strategic advisers.
The company said in a recent regulatory document that this protection will continue, "based on Mr.
Stevens continues to be relevant to the company and the level of risk assessed.
Like many defense contractors and big companies, Lockheed has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to secure its top management.
The company pays for residential safety, cars and drivers
In one case, members of the board are placed in a "safer residence ".
"Many also say that for their own safety, executives have to travel on corporate planes, or even on personal trips, and this statement can create tax benefits for executives.
The safety of VIPs has long been a sign of power, especially in Washington, where prestige is usually measured by the length of the motorcycle and the number of suits with wires inserted in the ears.
Foreign diplomats, government officials and Pentagon officials often travel with protective bags.
But in recent years, some top defense contractors have significantly increased their spending on protection, citing threats from government agencies and law enforcement.
As some benefits disappear under shareholder scrutiny, security remains a benefit for executives in many large companies --
Analysts said, especially after the 9/11 attacks.
"The entourage system lives well in Washington. C.
Retired Marine Major General Arnold Punaro said.
"Obviously we need to worry about safety, but when you see a three to four suburban convoy walking around town, you have to scratch your head and wonder if it's too much.
In 2010, Northrop Grumman received "specific information from federal law enforcement officers that led us to conclude that the company and its responsible persons were threatened, the company said in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
A spokesman declined to comment further.
The company has spent more than $1 on average since receiving the threat.
According to the documents submitted to the SEC, there are $5 a year to protect Chief Executive Wes Bush.
Between 2010 and 2012, Northrop also paid a total of $12.
Lewis Coleman, a non-protected 2 million
The executive chairman, which included "placing him in a safer residence", did not specify what that meant.
The company said in a document that Lockheed provided our executives with "family security consistent with the information provided by executives of our industry-listed companies ".
"Security is also provided in accordance with our company policy to provide security for any employee who is under a credible specific threat due to working at Lockheed Martin.
A spokesman for Lockheed declined to comment.
While as shareholders increasingly criticize executive privileges during the recession, benefits such as country club membership have disappeared, but personal security is one of the few companies that remain unchanged in Fortune 100 companies, according to Equilar, a California company that tracks executive pay.
"Investors understand the value of protecting CEO security and often do not consider safety as excessive welfare," said Aaron Boyd, director of governance research at Equilar . ".
But it can be very expensive.
Some companies spend millions of dollars protecting executives, according to regulatory documents.
Las Vegas Sands spent $3.
The top executive, Sheldon Adelson, has a security cost of up to 2 million.
A prominent conservative who led millions of Republican candidates and his immediate family last year.
Amazon, an online retailer, spent $1.
6 million protect Jeffrey P.
And Bezos, who owns The Washington Post.
Oracle spent $1.
In 2013, 5 million, chief executive Larry Ellison's residence in California was protected.
FedEx has the company's security enforcement protection division, protecting Chief Executive Frederick W. Smith.
The company stated in its annual document that his "personal safety and security are critical to FedEx and its shareholders, and therefore the costs associated with such guarantees are appropriate and necessary business costs.
"Security costs are considered business costs due to threats --
Related, said Michael melbing, chairman of employee benefits and executive compensation practices at Chicago law firm Winston stroun.
Typically, if executives and their family and friends use corporate aircraft for personal use, they will have to pay taxes on the value of the trip.
Melbinger said, but if the company quotes threats from outside sources, or if they hire a consultant who says there is a threat, the tax rate for this tax will be lower.
He said that this practice is in the "big brand --
"Say the companies that everyone knows who their executives are, and those that go to the cunning countries in defense and international business," he said . ".
Steven dycliffe, a law professor at Ohio State University, described the practice as a "loophole" that deprived the federal government of taxes and said it "should be closed ".
"It is clear that this is being used to give executives additional treatment," he said . ".
"It's okay if they want to give these benefits to their executives, but the federal government should not give them subsidies.
Security officials say even relatively unknown executives, worth millions of dollars, can be seen as top targets, especially when traveling overseas.
Defense contractors specifically said their leaders were attacked given the nature of their operations that often forced them to travel to the Middle East and Asia.
In American companies, security details are often low-key, not intended to attract attention.
But just because safety is often invisible doesn't mean it's not there, says Bruce Alexander, president of all source consulting companies at Gaithersburg, Md. Security company.
Instead of using "Sterling hired" guards, he said, they used "more discreet professionals ". The gray man.
Someone who looks like a lawyer, that's the image you want.
You want to fit in.
Loren Thompson, a consultant for many defense companies, said: "In addition to protecting their personnel, the headquarters of these companies has also become safer in recent years.
"Unless you have a large number of approvals, it is not possible for you to enter Northrop or Lockheed headquarters --
Or tanks, "he said.
"In some ways, security is as broad as any major government agency.
The threats, he said, are real and justify the huge spending.
"They not only armed the world's largest military force, but also equipped dozens of other countries, which are the dominant force in the global arms race," he said . ".
"They made a lot of enemies in the process.
"The threats listed in the SEC documents are often not detailed, so it is difficult for investors to understand the seriousness of them.
However, in the 2011 case, David Coleman Hedley, accused of being a terrorist, said at the trial,
Al-Qaida plans to kill chief executive Stevens of Lockheed at the time.
Not all corporate security beneficiaries are executives within the company.
Northrop Grumman spent $5 in 2011.
Coleman has been an external member of his board since 2001.
According to a document, the cost includes "safer accommodation" and permission for him to use a company plane for personal travel.
Coleman's main job was to act as president of DreamWorks Animation, whose benefits attracted scrutiny from shareholders and corporate governance regulators, who said it caused a conflict of interest.
Greg Ruel said the benefit "stands out because it is a huge security expense for an independent director who should be a representative of the shareholders rather than grateful to the company ", senior research analyst at GMI Ratings.
However, not all defense contractors provide security.
In its regulatory documents, SAIC said, "We generally do not provide executives with additional benefits and personnel benefits that other employees cannot access.
Punaro, who once served as executive vice president at the company, said he had never had security and had not flown on a private jet.
"If there is extra treatment there, I have never seen it, and I am happy with the SAIC food chain," he said . ".
"Are we United or Delta. ”
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...