Amazon.com, The Bodyguard

theodp writes "While the press is running Amazon's standard we-can't-make-our-CEO-accept-more-than-$81,840 line again this year, the e-tailer's recent SEC filing does disclose an interesting new compensation tidbit. On top of what it spends to provide security for its CEO at business facilities and during business travel, Amazon shells out an estimated $1.1 million a year to cover the cost of security arrangements for billionaire CEO Jeff Bezos. Holy Jack Welch, Batman - that's a lot of door desks!"

Comments

Seems reasonable

[flyingember]

That's $550/hour. Better than the $160,000/hour some ceos make

Re:Seems reasonable

[redcane]

40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, by my maths makes it closer to $39/hour?

Re:Seems reasonable

[redcane]

duh, for the security it's around $550 an hour....

Re:Seems reasonable

[Imsdal]

What's with the 40 h/week? If there is one thing that is needed around the clock, surely it's security. Or are the bad guys also only working 40 hour weeks? And if so, is it really probable that that would be the *same* 40 hours?

Also, the $1M figure seems quite low. Anyone would care to guess what security for GWB costs? I'd guess about 100 times as much.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zelucifer]

Well, a 3-day event involving Bush, his inauguration as a matter of fact cost $17 million dollars for security. Now when you consider that they're spending apparoximately $6.1 billion on upgrading his helicopters (increase floor space, and communications... specifically adding secure lines with constant access), Marine One if you're curious. I'd say it's quite a bit more then a hundred times.... interesting article on the Marine One upgrade if anyone is interested Popular Science

Re:Seems reasonable

[Imsdal]

On the other hand, the $17M for the inauguration supposedly offered security for more than just him, so all of it shouldn't go to "his" account.

Similarily, Amazon obviously spends a *lot* more than $1M on security per year, as does any company of some size.

Re:Seems reasonable

[jdcook]

"Better than the $160,000/hour some ceos make"

That's just the sort of blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-capitalistic garbage. I'll have you know that outgoing Exxon CEO, to whom you obliquely refer, was earning a mere $26,384.62/hour. ($686 million over 13 years, assuming 2000 working hours a year.) And I bet you pretend you'd be willing to handle the demanding tasks of a planet-raping CEO for half that. As if! It'll be a sad day for America when our CEOs are outsourced to India. Won't someone think of the billionaires?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zelucifer]

Agreed, however it was just an example of the incredible, difference between the two. Honestly, from some of the things I've read, $17 mil is a drop in the ocean compared to what we spend on the president every year.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the Exxon CEO only took 10 days off in the year? Or that he actually worked 9-5 when he was in the office? Somebody like that probably has 2-4 hour days most days, 3-4 months of vacation and usually comes in only 3-4 days/week.

Nobody is more overpaid and underworked than CEOs. Great work if you can get it, and I don't object to capitalism, but all of these rumors that they actually do anything to earn their keep needs to be quashed.

(The only person in the country more overpaid than CEOs is probably Vanna White - how many millions of dollars does she get each year to wear borrowed clothes, point at computer controlled letters - she doesn't even have to turn the tiles anymore - and try to look 1/2 as pretty as she did 20 years ago?)

Re:Seems reasonable

[glesga_kiss]

How can it seem reasonable? This makes no sense whatsoever. Say I was to take up some IT contracting for a while, with the right jobs and the right hours I could get quite rich. I then take the money from my work and buy, say e.g. a nice expensive car. Should I then ask the company that employed me to pay for the insurance? To pay for a secure lockup? To wash it every week?

This is completely crazy. If someone earns a million pounds, it is not the companies responsability to protect that money. It's not their issue. The contract was for his time in exchange for their money. That is done now.

In fact, thinking about this, this Amazon guy is being a cheeky wanker. He's getting paid shitloads, which carries a certain risk. Any normal person would simply pay for the necessary protection. But not this asswipe, he has to expense it to the company. No wonder this guys is rich, he's not paying for jack. What's the point in having money if you are just hoarding digital digits in a bank account somewhere?

I need to pop down to the bank just now to reoranize a few financial matters. Do you think I could expense a limo to take me there? After all, the reason I have this money is because they paid me!

Re:Seems reasonable

[Loligo]

As has already been pointed out, security at the inauguration was for everyone present at the event, not just GWB.

What hasn't been pointed out about the helicopters is that the $6.1B price tag is for a full fleet replacement, 23 new VH-71s, replacing the VH-3s that entered service in 1962. Further, they won't even be in use until at least 2009, after GWB leaves office. He'll most likely never even ride in one of the new units.

Calling the helicopter deal "upgrading [GWB's] helicopters" is like you buying a new car for your neighbor, and calling it "upgrading your station wagon".

Re:Seems reasonable

[Johnny Mnemonic]

That's the funniest sig I've seen in awhile.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Ingolfke]

Or are the bad guys also only working 40 hour weeks?

Yeah, actually according to union policy we can only work 40 hours per week without recieving overtime compensation. Also if you work after hours we're to recieve an extra 50% on our normal hourly rate. Unfortunately for us this has created a real problem because most evil organizations prefer to use bad guys in Iraq, Pakistan, or other low cost locations around the world we're non-unionized bad guys will work for a promise of a harem of virgins in the after life. We just can't compete. So I'm not really surprised that Amazon is taking advantage of a bad situation.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Misch]

Won't someone think of the billionaires?

There are.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Puutah_Mahdrey]

Absolutely. If one or two of the body guards is really hot and can double as a dominatrix, it is worth it.

Re:Seems reasonable

[kurzweilfreak]

You'd still do her. Don't lie.

Re:Seems reasonable

[kannibal_klown]

I don't condone it, but there's a difference in the company's eyes between you and a CEO. Mainly, they are more of a "target" than you or I. Also, they might have big fat life insurance policies if they die on the company clock.

Here's the thing. CEOs are a nice target for kidnapping. Remember that big Exxon kidnapping some years back? After that Exxon changed its standard for protecting the CEOs during transport; making sure their expensive guys have plenty of protection when moving around and such (even if the driver is just also a trained bodygaurd, that's at least something).

Chances are, nobody's going to kidnap you and use you as a hostage for Company X because you're just not that valuable to them. Nobody's going to scoop you up and demand that Company X pay some amount of money to get you back (unless it's a political thing) because frankly you're not worth the trouble.

Now, I haven't heard of a bigwig getting kidnapped in a while. But the chance is always there. Make enough money, stay in a position of power, and possibly make tough decisions that ruin lives and someone may get the idea.

In short, in the corporate world nobody gives a crap about us.

Maybe they need Microsoft Protection Services

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Microsoft has a new utility called Microsoft Protection Services. It's where salesmen from Redmond visit client sites and make sure that a great shame like something getting broken accidentally or someone getting injured in an unexpected accident doesn't happen.

Maybe Amazon just saw the need for some protection.

he needs it.. duh

[Toba82]

Things we know:
1) A lot of people on slashdot hate patents.
2) Jeff Bezos loves patents.
3) A lot of people on slashdot hate Jeff Bezos.

4) A lot of people on slashdot are libertarians.
5) Libertarians approve of gun rights.
6) A lot of people on slashdot have guns.

And:
7) Profit!

Re:he needs it.. duh

[hbo]

..
3) A lot of people on slashdot hate Jeff Bezos.
..
6) A lot of people on slashdot have guns.

That's ridiculous! If you keep spreading rumors like that, I'm going to find out where you live, and pay a visit, along with Mr. Smith and Mr Wesson.

Oh.. wait..

Re:he needs it.. duh

[Gorshkov]

That's ridiculous! If you keep spreading rumors like that, I'm going to find out where you live, and pay a visit, along with Mr. Smith and Mr Wesson.

Freaking l00z3r.

A *real* geek would just hack into NSA or SAC and arrange for somebody to be accidently dropped on his head.

Not that I'd ever think about something like that - that's bad.......

Re:he needs it.. duh

[cabinetsoft]

6) A lot of people on slashdot have guns.

Like we wouldn't know what's the average slashdotter arsenal: a chainsaw, a shotgun, a chaingun, a rocket launcher, a plasma rifle, and finally the immensely powerful BFG 9000.

Re:he needs it.. duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Six doesn't follow from five. Approving of gun rights doesn't imply gun ownership. Three doesn't follow from one or two. There's no stated connection between hating patents and hating people that love patents. If three and six are postulates, then one, two, four, and five are basically useless. In their places a posulate linking three and six so that seven is implied should be constructed.

Re:he needs it.. duh

[rethin]

Freaking l00z3r. A *real* geek would just hack into NSA or SAC and arrange for somebody to be accidently dropped on his head.

No a real geek would fill his house with popcorn. Then hack an orbiting space laser ...

Oh wait, that's a real genius

Re:he needs it.. duh

[dodobh]

Clickety-click!

Re:he needs it.. duh

[AnotherUsername]

You forgot the crowbar...

Re:he needs it.. duh

[somersault]

the more sophisticated slashdotters, who try to keep up with the times, tend to use a crowbar ;) I still like my trusty axe though

Re:he needs it.. duh

[cloak42]

A *real* geek would just hack into NSA or SAC and arrange for somebody to be accidently dropped on his head.

Why would you drop somebody on his head? That's not nice to either of them.

The ambiguous pronoun reminds me of a line from Clue:

"He threatened to kill me in public."

"Why would he want to kill you in public?"

"I think she meant he threatened, in public, to kill her."

Re:he needs it.. duh

[Gorshkov]

or, I *could* have just meant dropped someTHING

friggin preview button .........

Re:he needs it.. duh

[cloak42]

Oh, I just assumed that what you meant was to turn somebody upside down and drop him on his head. :)

Re:he needs it.. duh

[Xichekolas]

Everybody forgets the trusty pistol...

You know, with a good hex editor, the pistol in Doom II was 1000 round per second swath of death and gibbing... not to mention it sounded like an old crotchety woman farting when you fired it!

Re:he needs it.. duh

[Ctrl-Z]

Whose head?!

Re:he needs it.. duh

[cloak42]

Sorry, but there was only one object in that sentence and thus no pronoun ambiguation. :)

Re:he needs it.. duh

[CAIMLAS]

Considering how liberal and fearful many of the slashdotters are, it's highly, highly doubtful that most own firearms.

Re:he needs it.. duh

[9mm Censor]

Great, and while you have Mr Smith, I will have Mrs. Smith.

Re:he needs it.. duh

[sgt_doom]

Strangely enough, I've seen Bezos from time to time about town - and he's never with a bodyguard (assuming they are not extremely well camouflaged), and I hate patents....and I support only the local bookstores.....I wonder what caliber......????!!!?!

This article should be modded "Overrated"

[dteichman2]

It's a rich guy who isn't trying that hard to get richer.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[Anonymous Coward]

i think until you have a scrooge mcduck like pool full of gold coins that your three nephews can swim in, you are always trying to get richer. :D

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[ChrisGilliard]

It's a rich guy who isn't trying that hard to get richer.

Think again, CEOs don't make money in salary. They make money if their company's stock goes up.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends. Some CEOs are paid in stock, meaning they have a stake in the company. Other CEOs are handed giant paychecks and get to fly around in the corporate jet, and don't give a damn about the company beyond not getting ousted by the board.

Of course, owning stock doesn't guarantee they'll keep the company healthy either, but at least it's not as absurd as multimillion dollar compensation, or those enormous severance packages after they run the company into the ground.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[woolio]

It's a rich guy who isn't trying that hard to get richer.

When you have a billion dollars, it takes much effort NOT to get richer.

1 Billion in the bank at 5%/year means an interest income of 50 MILLION/year.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[Zelucifer]

Oh, I so disagree. He owns approximately 24% of the company. So instead of getting paid 5 mil, he lets the company reinvest that money, thereby raising stock prices, generating significantly more money than the 5 mil.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[Anonymous Coward]

Stock compensation does not align the CEO's interest with shareholders. Specifically, the CEO is getting the stock for free, and is not losing an investment if his or her actions harm the company. A stock grant is an option, and its future value is higher (in many cases) the greater the risk the CEO takes.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[freedom_india]

35% of 50 million goes to IRS.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear, not 35% of 50 million! How on earth are you gonna surive on the remaining 32.5 million?? And do you think you'll be able to afford a few accountants to figure out how to file your taxes so you pay the least possible?

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[cdrudge]

Good point. I mean, how on earth can anyone survive on just $32.5m a year. While I'm sure that I could burn through it, I honestly don't think I could spend that much in a lifetime without really wasting it on things.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[Profane MuthaFucka]

If you've been paying attention, you see that CEOs make the most money when they are fired after running their companies into the ground.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[Jeffrey Baker]

I see you've never been paid with incentive stock options. These are never free. The stock is granted at a certain strike price, which is normally the market price on the day of the grant. The grantee must pay this price per share to exercise the option. Therefore, after the exercise, the stock behaves exactly like a regular investment. However, the grantee owes a substantial tax payment immediately upon exercising the option, even if the shares are not sold. This is why incentive stock options can sometimes be more risky than simply buying shares.

Anyway, I think even you can see that the CEO in this scenario is going to make squat if the share price does not increase, therefore he has an incentive to make the share price go up, which aligns his self-interest with that of the other shareholders.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[corvenus]

You can be sure that they can afford good enough accountants and lawyers as to make sure not to pay that much to IRS.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[AuMatar]

You're assuming he gets options. There's also stock grants- where you are given X shares of the company vesting over N years, and you don't need to pay for them. When I signed on with Amazon, I was given a grant, not options.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[Jeffrey Baker]

That's great, but what does that have to do with Mr. Bezos? Are you saying he has been paid in straight shares? Because as far as I can tell from the company's SEC filings, that is not the case. Anyway the last thing Bezos needs is more shares of Amazon.com. He's the founder, and he already owns 25% of the company.

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[coldcanofbeer]

Or you can use a Virgin Islands tax loophole http://www.nysun.com/article/8885 and only be taxed on $5,000,000 rather than the $50,000,000. Total taxes on that 50 Million dollars would be about $1.75 Mil

Re:This article should be modded "Overrated"

[AK Marc]

Anyway, I think even you can see that the CEO in this scenario is going to make squat if the share price does not increase, therefore he has an incentive to make the share price go up, which aligns his self-interest with that of the other shareholders.

But if a CEO identifies risky action that will win bog or fail big, there is no reason not to take it. If it wins big, he wins big. If it bankrupts the company, his golden parachute will kick in and he gets millions for destroying the company and gets hired on somewhere else (yes, CEOs that make companies fail still get the chance to run other companies). So the options may not be exercised in the second case, but that they are options means that he would lose nothing.

Informative link

[BadAnalogyGuy]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1869377,00.as p

Re:Informative link

[ciroknight]

That's not an analogy at all, BadAnalogyGuy!

Frugality

[Langfat]

From TFA:

"If you look at this building, you can open the windows and get fresh air and natural light. Those things actually matter to people. Having a mahogany credenza does not." He laughs powerfully. "There are no mahogany credenzas here. There's no art on the walls.

Ok, now I agree that what is hanging on most office walls is an expensive waste of space, but by saying it in this way, it makes the guy sound like he's saying art doesn't matter to people. That's a ballsy statement that I would highly contest (just look at the uproar here on /. surrounding Ebert's comments as to whether video games are art).

Re:Frugality

[Drkdstryer]

Ok, now I agree that what is hanging on most office walls is an expensive waste of space, but by saying it in this way, it makes the guy sound like he's saying art doesn't matter to people. That's a ballsy statement that I would highly contest (just look at the uproar here on /. surrounding Ebert's comments as to whether video games are art).

I don't really care about whether video games are art or not - I see valid arguments on both sides. I want them to be RECOGNIZED as art because then they would get the protection I feel games need, in order to keep them fun and worth buying.

Re:Frugality

[Anonymous Coward]

Public companies are primarily supposed to minimize costs and maximize profit margins to enrich their shareholders. If company money is diverted toward elaborate furnishings, without some profit incentive from the aesthetic value of art, it seems a fairly easy target of criticism. Every penny invested in depreciating or slowly-appreciating assets is money that isn't spent growing the company or some investment with a higher rate of appreciation. Unless it poses a tax benefit greater than a more profitable use of the money, again it's an easy target of criticism.

The thing is that companies are willing to waste money on elaborate trappings for executives--under the pretense that executives are valuable and pleasing them with such perks maintains their presence, which in turn retains the success they bring the company. If the engineering group responsible for designing the products that also make the company successful were to request a Van Gogh or two, they'd obtain the appropriations middle finger of excellence. The spoils of being top dog are sweet indeed.

Re:Frugality

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Ok, now I agree that what is hanging on most office walls is an expensive waste of space, but by saying it in this way, it makes the guy sound like he's saying art doesn't matter to people."

Given that the context of that quote was productivity, I don't see what's so appauling about what he said.

Re:Frugality

[192939495969798999]

Thanks for not being philanthropic with your money and investing in some art. There's only 2 kinds of rich people, the kind that sponsors the arts, and total scrooges. How embarassing for him... I can hear the head-shaking of the worldwide philanthropic-rich-people community as well as the starving artists everywhere (AHEM).

Re:Frugality

[RESPAWN]

Actually, what I find hanging on the walls in a lot of offices I go to these days is merely a cheap waste of money: those stupid inspirational posters. I'm sorry, but if you feel that employee moral is so low that it can be boosted by a $10 poster with a pretty picture and an inspirational quote, then you really don't give a shit about your employees, no matter which way you cut it.

Re:Frugality

[Rob the Bold]

I think this poster http://despair.com/motivation.html is exactly what you need.

Re:Frugality

[Java Ape]

Hmmm. I guess Bezos, will all is zillions of dollars, has little appreciation for art, and prefers the look of plastic/laminate/chrome. I have much more modest means,and live in cubeville (although I have a rather-larger-than-usual cube). This cube is made more bearable by some fine handmade (by me!) barrister's bookshelves, several nice pieces of artwork, and other nice touches. I find it more relaxing and pleasant to work in than sterile workspaces used by some of my co-workers.

In my opinion, if you're going to spend more than half your waking hours in a room, it makes good sense to dedicate some resources to making it as comfortable and aethetically pleasing as possible. Unless, I suppose, you're a Benedictine monk trying to mortify the physical senses while seeking enhanced spirituality. . . However, Bezos doesn't strike me as that sort of man!

Re:Frugality

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Let me see if I can phrase this in computer terms...

What most companies hang on the walls is the Windows default wallpaper ("Bliss"). What people consider "art" suitable for hanging on the walls is Digital Blasphemy. If you can't afford reproductions of Digital Blasphemy desktops, don't waste money on copying Bilss.

Re:Frugality

[AuMatar]

There's a difference between an employee hanging a poster, and the company paying for fine art everywhere. THe second is an order of magnitude more money. Employees at Amazon can hang what they want in there cubes. Me, I have my Einstein doll collection.

Re:Frugality

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that Jeff is referring more to museum quality artwork than to the kind of things that individuals hang in their offices. People can hang whatever in their offices. I can put pushpins in my cube walls.

It's also worth noting that Amazon has huge numbers of whiteboards (check out the elevators at headquarters) and other drawing surfaces. While some of these have stupid phrases or equations on them, many also have drawings and other art.

Also, looking around the offices, plastic/laminate/chrome is exactly what we don't have. Strong tendencies for bare wood, steel, or painted plasterboard. Four out of five of Amazon's buildings in Seattle offer excellent views of the Puget Sound. There's a strong preference for natural beauty rather than artificial ostentation.

"fine handmade (by me!) barrister's bookshelves"

Jeff would love that. You could probably get him to sign off on providing the materials if you worked at Amazon. Especially if you were willing to make them out of closet doors, but even more normal materials. Amazon will provide store bought bookshelves to employees on request.

Amazon prides itself on not spending a million dollars where a thousand dollars would do.

Re:Frugality

[Java Ape]

Thanks for the correction in my mental image of Amazon. My estimation of Bezos and the workplace there just went up several notches!

That's the problem with Bezos...

[Anonymous Coward]

...always moving so fast you can't even hitch a ride over pits and quicksand.

So?

[bl00d6789]

I'm not really sure I see what the big deal is. While $1.1 million might seem like an excessive amount to spend on security for one person, it isn't compensation to Bezos. It's an expenditure for security of a company official while he's conducting company business, not a paycheck.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point. You have to be OUTRAGED. Or you won't comment, start comment/mod flame wars, and basically drive more traffic to Slashdot.

Income tax

[Aceticon]

There's a not that uncommon tax scam for company owners which works as the following:
- Company owner is also company CEO
- Company CEO is payed minimum/symbolic wages
- Company pays for just about any expense of the owner/CEO and his family

Thus "safe"-house, bulletproof limo, bodyguard-driver, security-certified cleaning company, bulletproof yacht ...

I reckon that for a listed company, the positive advertising (and share price boosting) effects of divulging a CEO's low salary would make such a scam even sweeter ...

Re:Income tax

[Azghoul]

Seems to me to be a flaw in the idea of "income tax". Oh well, throw a few hundred more pages in the tax code, no big deal, right? As long as the gov't gets theirs and we can stick it to rich guys....

Re:Income tax

[AndyMcL]

Not a flaw. A loophole.

If there are new laws made to plug it, the rich have plenty of well paid type A professionals with accounting and law degrees or can hire firms who will figure out ways around the new laws. That is why they stay rich and do not have to pay those pesky taxes. Also, as stated in other posts, if the company is the one officially making all the money, the company has to worry about paying taxes not Jeff. Of course the company will have many expenses (like the 1.1 million in security for Jeff) which will cancel out income.....so the company (and Jeff) will not have to pay taxes. Most corporations (around 95%??) do not pay corporate federal income tax because they can bring the tax that they owe down to 0% legally. I guess the other 5% do not have good accountants working for them? :-)

Andy

Re:Income tax

[ScentCone]

There's a not that uncommon tax scam for company owners which works as the following...

Think, for a moment, past whatever distaste you have for the fact that some people launch successful businesses and get themselves (and the people who risked money to help) a good (or great) return on that investment.

What do you think it would cost Amazon if something unexpected were to happen to Bezos? A million dollars? Way, way more than that. What do you think it would cost everyone who have a bit of their pension fund invested in Amazon's stock? What do you think it would cost the thousands of vendors, partners, employees, re-sellers, affiliates, freight companies, publishers, and everyone else if Amazon had a big stumble - even if just temporarily - because Bezos got wacked by some addled-brained author who's mad because his crappy book couldn't get out of position 150,000 on the A-list?

Companies with interests that far reaching and of that much significant financial impact on/for so many people are simply buying insurance when they spend such a relatively small amount on protective services for their key figures. A million is a lot of money. But that's nothing compared to what it would cost Amazon if Bezos got killed in a carjacking or got kidnapped in Belize while on vacation. I own some stock in Amazon, and I sure as hell would hope that the company's looking out for the interests of their highest-profile, most important human asset. Sure the company would function without him... but way, way more than a million bucks would go down the toilet if he met a sudden violent end.

Re:Income tax

[Anonymous Coward]

At a certain company i may or may not have worked for once upon a time the CEOs annual was 1$, but he just happened to own the buildings in which two of the regional HQs were located and a bunch of plant / equipment all of which the company leased from him for a (measely) million or so dollars a year.

I had no idea how it all worked, it was obvious that the rent bill (for the size / location of said buildings) was bargain for the company. The CEO personnaly held like 55% of the shares of the company and was very involved in the day to day business there, to say he was passionate about the company was an understatement.

A bunch of weird, yet perfectly legal, stuff like this came to light when i may or may not have been there. for instance, people would buy cars from the company thought the company had no direct business in the buying or selling of cars, it didn't have a need for a fleet of cars either. Employees and their friends or family would (so it seemed from my perspective) randomly buy a company car. A brand new (and upon one occasion imported), car. The cost of the car seemed to vary a little but usually under 10% of the market value. I recall one situation where the employee even sold the car back to company, because he was relocating.

that company is still going strong (as is the CEO last I heard).

Re:Income tax

[leehwtsohg]

And now he's safe from death?

What was his estimated probability of death over the next 10 years, what is it now? Divide the cost of 1.1 mil by the difference between these two numbers, and that is what you have to compare to the loss to the company. The death rate was not reduced from 100% to 0%.

It would also be a shame if Bezos died of hunger, and yet Amazon is not supposed to pay for his food. Or maybe he could become unstable because of lack of entertainment, so amazon should pay for trips around the world and concert tickets. Or if he was very sick? Amazon should also pay for healthcare. Or if he was hit by electricity from using unsafe appliences at home? Amazon should make sure he's only using the best of the best in kitchen appliences. Or better yet, provide for someone to cook for him.

You see, it could be that Bezos himself also has some interest in preventing accidental death, or good entertainment, or good food. Maybe even more than amazon. Normally a person would provide for all these himself, and then, if the company thinks that not enough was done, then maybe they would provide for a bit added protection. But it seems here, the same person is doing both sides of the negotiation. Bezos the private person will say "I feel safe, I don't need any protection". And then Beszos the CEO says "Oh no, you can't say that. You are under extreme danger! Here, we will make sure that you are safe! It would be an emense loss to all of us if anything happened to you!"

Re:Income tax

[Aceticon]

I have no problem with the guy's success.

It's the half-assed attempt to look like someone that sacrifices himself for the good of company (and to by projecting such image getting his stock to go up in value) that gets on my nerves.

In other words, my problem is with dishonest people trying to scam everybody else.

Re:Income tax

[ScentCone]

And now he's safe from death?

No, but for as long as he's doing what he's doing for Amazon, much of what makes him (and other big-ticket, very public figures) valuable and a magnet for criminals (of both the nefarious and crackpot variety) is because of what he does for Amazon. To the degree that what you spend your days doing for a multi-billion dollar company employing thousands of people makes you more vulnerable to everything from pie-throwing faux-anarachist buffoons to Pacific-Rim kidnapping gangs or some supremely disgruntled ex-employee... it's reasonable for the company that's reaping the benefits of your employment to mitigate some of what comes with that territory. It's not Amazon's problem if Bezos falls off a cliff while hiking (though Amazon would lose a fortune overnight), but it is reasonably is the company's concern if someone tries to throw acid in is face at a stockholder's meeting, wants to Send Him To Hell because he provides benefits to gay employees' partners (or the opposite if he doesn't, whatever).

But it seems here, the same person is doing both sides of the negotiation.

Wrong. It's a company owned by its investors. He's one of the investors, certainly, and probably the most influential employee. But the board of directors is a collaborative body, and if they (and the vast voting ownership that hold stock) thought that corporately provided security for Bezos was frivalous, it wouldn't be there. He's more rock-star/rainmaker at this point, than business manager.

Re:Income tax

[leehwtsohg]

He's more rock-star/rainmaker at this point, than business manager.

Then what would be lost if he would be lost? Publicity?

Re:Income tax

[ScentCone]

Then what would be lost if he would be lost? Publicity?

Business continuity. Investor confidence. Morale. All for only a while, but the result in lost productivity at the company, and in the value of the stock would, despite certain recovery down the road, absolutely eclipse the expense of going to the comparitively routine expense of keeping a large company's leaders traveling and being in public as safe as possible. It's not complicated, it's simple math, and they're doing a certain amount of risk analysis/gambling, but they do that involving WAY more investor dollars every time they make a decision about one of their warehouses and how many Harry Potter books to ship in.

Re:Income tax

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think it would cost Amazon if something unexpected were to happen to Bezos? A million dollars?

How about zero dollars?

I will now proceed to provide as much evidence for my wild speculation as you did.

Re:Income tax

[Damana Mathos]

What do you think it would cost Amazon if something unexpected were to happen to Bezos?

Given their recent stock performance, it would probably be good for the company. :)

Re:So? -- It is for private security.

[David Hume]

I'm not really sure I see what the big deal is. While $1.1 million might seem like an excessive amount to spend on security for one person, it isn't compensation to Bezos. It's an expenditure for security of a company official while he's conducting company business, not a paycheck.

I don't think that is correct. The linked Schedule 14A states:

1,100,000 (2)

(2) Represents the approximate incremental cost of security arrangements for Mr. Bezos in addition to security arrangements provided at business facilities and for business travel. The Company believes that all Company-incurred security costs are for the Company's benefit.

his dodge-ball skills should suffice

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, I'm surprised Jeff feels he needs the guards. Two years ago in an Amazon.com dodgeball league mathcup, I chucked a ball at his feet. He leapt over it jumping-jack style while simultaneously throwing another ball into my knee. Fortunately he didn't have enough time to suck in enough air for his laugh as I headed to the sideline.

...and yes, we still have door-desks.. though they're rumoured to cost more than regular desks!

Re:his dodge-ball skills should suffice

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be funny if you had mahogany door desks :)

Re:his dodge-ball skills should suffice

[XaXXon]

And stay away from the corner supports -- they'll rip right through your jeans and tear into your skin.

Like random flying chairs and stuff???

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Or maybe Ballmer was just practicing for his King Kong/monkey boy gig?

On the bright side....

[mikelang]

The bright side is that:

• nobody doubts that multi-billionaire needs bodyguards,
• nobody doubts that CEO like Jeff Bezos is worth the additional expense.

Re:On the bright side....

[RealGrouchy]

The bright side is that:

• nobody doubts that multi-billionaire needs bodyguards,
• nobody doubts that CEO like Jeff Bezos is worth the additional expense.

Well, I would if I were an Amazon.com shareholder or customer. Since I'm not, I could care less what he gets paid.

In fact, why am I even reading this?!?

- RG>

Re:So? -- It is for private security.

[bl00d6789]

I think what that's stating is that the $1.1 million was spent on security above and beyond what would have otherwise been provided by hotels and transportation services. That's just my interpretation, but that would mean that the $1.1 million is still just a business-related travel expense. Regardless, it clearly cannot be considered a payment to Bezos.

Obligatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Popular Science

Popular Science, haha, no such thing man. More like... Nerdular... Nerdence.

wtf?

[illtron]

This summary confused the hell out of me. Please, if you're not funny, stop the attempts at humor. It only makes you look like a jackass.

Bill Gates Mother

[fishdan]

I can't find a reference to it anywhere, so it may just be urban legend, but I heard that there was a very real attempt to kidnap Bill Gates mother about 10 years ago, that was broken up at the last moment by the police. Even if it's just rumor, I don't resent these guys needing to feel secure -- and it's obviously not just themselves. Is it fair for Jeff Bezos' siblings to think that they might be targetted?

You'd have to think that with money like the extremely wealthy and extremely popular have, they have very legit security concerns. That's why I didn't like the pie episode. Hate the guy all you want (and in my professional life, I really do despise Bill and MSFT), but whatever you might think of a person, there's no reason to make hi, fear for his life. And for me, when I saw the pie movie, there's a second on Bills face when it looks like he's has the epiphany "Fuck, I'm a potential target for [terrorists | anarchists | crazed anti-indutrialists | ELFers | PETA | someone who thinks I'm a symbol], and this person is about to hit me with something." I saw a real fear of anticipated violence.

And for me that's over the line.

Re:Bill Gates Mother

[Willy Wong]

She was dead about 10 years ago.

Re:Bill Gates Mother

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the kidnapping went bad.

Re:Bill Gates Mother

[Anonymous Coward]

I think those people have to accept that the fame they have acquired, that eventually made them rich, will create some reactions.

Eventhough I am not in favor of "violent" actions, I think the pie episode is, somewhat, a way to tell those people that they might be living in their ivory tower, they aren't protected from everything, and that they are far from being unvulnerable. If they create a negative reaction through the actions they've taken, so far as to frustrate a lot of people, they will eventually get fought back.

You can't win when you are fighting against someone that has just to wait until you make a mistake to take you out...

just my 2 cents.

Re:So? - Compensation

[ccevans]

Note that this is listed as compensation received by Bezos. If this were security while he were conducting company business, it would not be considered compensation, and would not need to be linked to him. This explains the "in addition to security arrangements provided at business facilities and for business travel". The money is most likely paid to him to compensate him for his personal security expenses, such as the security at his residence.

However, this doesn't mean that the payment is somehow inappropriate, as the summary seems to imply. Bezos' job gives him a very high profile, and the resultant security risks don't go away when he isn't conducting company business. It is quite likely that many other high profile executives are in a similar situation.

This is the way rich stay rich

[AndyMcL]

This is the way rich stay rich; have a company they control officially make all the money and spend all the money on them. That way it never shows up as their personal income or expenses so the tax man stays away would be litigators do not have much to try to sue for.

That is the way the smart rich people do it. Middle and low class lamers (me included) make all their income as salary and so are taxed on everything we make. Also, if we are sued we could lose everything we have.

There must be some tax advantage reason for the dollar amount get gets in salary.

So don't fault Jeff, he is just using the American system to his advantage.

--just some thing to think about.

Sincerely,

Middle Class Lamer

from the (first linked) article

[mapkinase]

Chief Executive Jeffrey P. Bezos - who is worth $4.3 billion, according to Forbes magazine

Do you really need "annual compensation" for what I would call "managing your personal finances"?

OT: Re:Ebert

[mapkinase]

I googled up the original Ebert/games/art article (BTW, /. search was useless for that type of search):

+5 comments: zero.
+1: 134

Is that called "uproar" nowadays? A little bunch of tepid posts?

Just a question.

Re:So? -- It is for private security.

[elrous0]

it clearly cannot be considered a payment to Bezos.

Yeah, just like when companies give congressmen lavish trips to Hawaii for "conferences." How can you consider it a bribe when they're doing a few minutes of business on their 3 week trip? And those meals at 5-star restaurants--well, they have to EAT to do business, right? And that $100 million yacht--well, they have travel expenses, right?

-Eric

Re:Of course we need...

[Rob T Firefly]

I don't think an aged Kevin Costner tenderly carrying Jeff Bezos away is quite the mental image I need today, thankyousomuch...

Re:So? -- It is for private security.

[The AtomicPunk]

Here, Here! Hate the rich!! woot! Lousy stinkin' rich, what did they ever do for us? Except provide jobs... and drive up the standard of living... and bring us aqueducts!

Want to bitch about Congress? Go for it. Only problem is - you're most likely one of the people voting them in there - or did you actually vote third party?

As for the $1M in security - how exactly is that compensation? If your company took out key man insurance on you to protect itself - would you consider that compensation?

Securing the Executive Branch

[bigdaddyhame]

Certainly he needs bodyguards, and rightly so. The market for kidnapping billionaires' relatives for ransom is quite lucrative. Up in Canada one of our billionaires, Jim Pattison, paid an undisclosed ransom to kidnappers after his daughter was kidnapped. She was returned unharmed, but no doubt Pattison's security detail was upgraded. Didn't the family that owns the Heineken brewery in Holland suffer the same? The board of directors of any large company have a responsibility to the shareholders to keep themselves, and the Chairman and CEO, out of trouble.

Re:So? -- It is for private security.

[Fastolfe]

I agree. But either way, it's not too unusual for a company's most prized employee to deserve some company-provided protection at home. $1.1M isn't a lot of money when you consider that it probably pays for a very modest but skilled staff and equipment to do the job. I can imagine the cost of a security shack, a handful of guards, surveillance equipment, etc., could easily end up costing this much.

1.1 Million isn't all that much

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm involved in the security profession, and protecting VIPs, government officials and the extremely wealthy is a lucrative endeavour. We're talking about bomb-sniffing dogs, event security staff, hardened vehicles, etc.

You should see what it costs to protect your state goverment officials...

Reasonable cost.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked in Executive Protection for both the federal gov't and private sector. USD 1.1 mil for annual 24-7 protection of varying degress is actually very very reasonable. I'd say it's low for a high profile individual like him.

Personnel, training, travel (plus lodging, meals, and incidental expenses), equipment, modified vehicles, background checks, comm with crypto, etc. It adds up fast.

Nothing important here. Move along.

The CEO is what made Amazon what it is

[moochfish]

You are talking about the man who directed one of the top internet brands in the world through the bubble burst and into profitability. $1.1 million plus $80k ($1.18 million) for a CEO is chump change. They could double or triple the cost of his security and salary and he'd still be worth it. When you have a CEO that makes your company adapt and grow to new trends as well as Amazon has, paying the CEO less than 0.05% of your company's revenue isn't insane.

Re:The CEO is what made Amazon what it is

[birge]

a-fucking-men. as a grad student making about $32k a year, you can be assured that i'm not biased towards ceo's or people who make a lot of money. but this resentment of the ultrarich ceo is just pathetic.

(a) financially it makes sense. a good ceo can earn a company billions. as an asset, a good ceo is worth millions a year.

(b) being a ceo is like winning the lottery, except there is skill involved. for chrissake, even a hippie can count the number of Fortune 500 CEOs in the entire country. (hint: it's less than 600.) do these simpering liberal douches whining about ceo pay ever whine about people who win the lottery or people who make $10 million on a tort settlement? of course not. but at least ceos benefit all of society and, in some real sense, have earned their position at lottery winners.

(c) the total pay of all ceos in nothing compared to our GDP, but the revenue of their companies pretty much IS our GDP. so it's not hurting us, and if buying the best helps our economy and our country compete, then we ALL benefit from the admittedly crazy salaries these guys get.

Re:So? -- It is for private security.

[hunterx11]

Being rich is not in itself a vice, but giving powerful people the benefit of the doubt is pretty foolish. Chances are, they aren't going to show any goodwill to the less powerful; they're just going to exploit any goodwill the less powerful show to them. Why should employees be grateful for jobs if employers aren't grateful for labor?

By the way, I sure am glad my real wages have gone up so much since in the last 25 years. Almost by .1%!

what is a big deal exactly?

[BigGerman]

Even one decent bodyguard 24 hours a day is going to cost you some $400,000 a year. And I am sure those guys need gear and gas and expense accounts. I dont think this amounts to much.

Acctually, that sounds resonable.

[Baka_kun]

wonder how many wackos with guns that has gotten ripped off ebay and amazon yet? someones bound to try and take it out on their ceos.