“Buried in Apple’s ‘Schedule 14A’ report with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is the fact that Apple spends close to $700,000 per annum to protect Apple’s CEO Tim Cook,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.
This amount represents: (i) the Company’s contributions to Mr. Cook’s account under its 401(k) plan in the amount of $15,600; (ii) Company-paid term life insurance premiums in the amount of $2,520; (iii) vacation cash-out in the amount of $56,923; and (iv) security expenses in the amount of $699,133.
“There’s plenty of upside to being a Fortune 100 CEO. But the power also comes with a major downside: it can come with all sorts of threats to personal safety,” Claire Zillman reported for Fortune in January. “Not only do those threats pose danger to individual executives, but such events could be devastating for a company’s financial health. So it’s no wonder that some of the nation’s most prominent companies pay a pretty penny to ensure their leaders stay out of harm’s way.”
“Which company shells out the most?” Zillman reports. “According to analysis of Fortune 100 data in the upcoming 2014 Benefits and Perquisites Report by Equilar, which tracks executive compensation, it’s Amazon. The online retailer paid $1.6 million in 2013 for security perks for founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, whose personal worth totals an estimated $28 billion.”
“Oracle spent $1.5 million on security for Larry Ellison, who recently stepped down as CEO of Oracle but will serve as executive chairman and chief technology officer of the business software company. In an SEC filing, the company said that the $1.5 million went toward security-related costs and expenses for Ellison’s ‘residence.’ The Oracle founder is known for his extravagant real estate purchases, including nearly an entire Hawaiian island in 2012,” Zillman reports. “Disney spends the third-most [make that fourth-most – MDN Ed.] money for CEO security, according to Equilar, paying $584,075 to protect CEO Bob Iger, followed by the $385,606 Berkshire Hathaway shells out for Warren Buffett’s safety…”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Better safe than sorry. To us, it seems like Apple’s getting of cheap. Cook’s safety is paramount. Hopefully Jony is well-protected as well.
[Attribution: Fortune. Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]
To what extent are other key personnel protected? Specifically Jonny Ive? He certainly should be.
Sir Ive? Minimal – he rides a bulletproof bustleback Bently.
Quite well thank you.
I’ve seen this story every year for the last 3 years. Of course CEOs have to be protected from nutters. BIG YAWN.
That’s fine. Just so CEO’s & other “celebrities” don’t become “nutters” themselves when they feel the need to interject their mores by taking to Social Network or being called to Congress to express why the People’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights needs to be further regulated! Remember, it’s the “nutters” who are the problem, not the means!
Apple is paying 700,000 too much for Tim Cook’s security. He’s not even worth a can of pepper spray. And if he is that damned concerned for his security, then he should perhaps keep his sexually degenerate agenda to himself. Moreover, liberal hypocrites such as Cook are always the first to advocate for the government to grab guns from law abiding citizens – citizens who have guns in the first place to protect themselves from the barbaric criminal class, i.e., the sons and daughters of Barack Obama.
What a ridiculously idiotic post.
It is one thing to intelligently argue some political position; it is another to spew hatred and fear, especially if it is nonsensical.
You seem to be quite obsessed with Tim Cook’s sexual orientation. As Shakespeare wrote, “…the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”; in other words, you are not alone. There are many closeted gay men like yourself who grew up in a deeply conservative / religious communities and have been brainwashed to reject their true selves. Most of the time, most vocal protesters against “gay degenerate agenda” are themselves gay, but unwilling to accept and come out due to severe pressure of their community. As the message says, it gets better. Don’t be afraid, it’s OK…
While there are certainly many closeted gay men who go out of their way to denigrate out gay men to cover their feelings, I’m not sure it’s fair to accuse everyone spewing homophobic hatred of being closeted gays. There are quite enough intensely religious types capable of spewing this bile.
That may well be true, but for the character in question, his protestations sound very, very suspicious.
Ah yes, the familiar liberal trope: If you’re against the homo agenda, then you must be a homo yourself. That’s so original. Put yourself down for a gold star!
So if, for example, some liberal expresses opposition to “racism,” they must be racist themselves – right?
Yeah, kind of funny how liberals don’t want to apply that tired trope across the board.
As for Tim Cook, I’ll shut up about his sexual degeneracy when he does, and not one damned second sooner.
You liberals always want it both ways. You can obsess over your pet issues, but when someone opposes your obsession, you can’ tha doe very well at all.
I would tell you to go to hell, but since that would be superfluous since you’re going there anyway. Have fun with that!
Predrag Queen wrote:
“Most of the time, most vocal protesters against “gay degenerate agenda” are themselves gay…”
Berean_Bob replies:
Please present your data to support this claim.
Bob, you forgot Hitler, socialist, and arrogant.
Ever seen those online bullshit generators? You click a button and it generates bullshit such as:
“repurpose best-of-breed e-services”
Seemingly meaningful, at first glance. But actually meaningless corporate-speak gibberish.
I think, perhaps, beanbrain bob has a “negative bullshit generator”… randomly putting together spiteful, angry and nasty clichés in what, at first glance, look like meaningful English sentences.
Steve Jobs live in a suburban open community without gates or guard house, and he regularly left his back door unlocked. What am I missing here?
Elitism. I wonder if the same liberals that decry average citizens’ access to weapons for self protection and protection of others don’t bat an eye when surrounded by security personnel packing firearms.