Archive for category Estate Security

Executive Protection: Entourage Vs. The ‘Real Deal’, By Aegis PI

     This is a treat.  With permission from the guys at Aegis PI, I wanted to post this excellent article on some EP stuff. Specifically, the difference between a professional close protection specialist versus the typical ‘entourage’ body guards that celebrities sometimes use.

     Hell, you could apply the same example to these leaders of small countries that tend to use their family or friends (entourage) as body guards, as opposed to using professionals. And in both cases, when you need serious dependable protection or guidance for avoiding any embarrassments, the optimum choice will always be the professional.  -Matt

——————————————————————

Entourage vs the “real deal”

By Aegis PI

July 22nd, 2010

Just what is the real deal? We will get to that in a bit. What exactly are we talking about here?

That’s simple…

Celebrity Protection.

Not just any Celeb, but one segment specifically, Rappers.

Dear _________, (insert your favorite artist here)

The media and the music industry are filled with story after story of this Hip-Hop artist or that Rapper getting into some sort of trouble because their so called “security” made things worse instead of better. Lets be clear here. They aren’t security at all. They are your boys. Hangers on. The entourage.

They have no formal training in personal security. They think an advance is what happens before pay day. More often then not they are drinking and partying with you. Their felony convictions keep them from legally carrying firearms.

Just because they grew up with you doesn’t mean they are the best person for the job. Yes, your homies loyalty and trust is unshakable. Yes they will do anything for you but is that a good thing? Think about it, how safe are you when your so called ‘bodyguards’ are matching you shot for shot?

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Executive Protection: Current Status Of Fortune 500 Security Expenditures

   This is one of the best articles I have come across in awhile, just because it is full of some very good info on the money side of executive protection. I have never seen such a complete compilation of this stuff, and bravo to Mr. Andrejczak for putting this together. Maybe he could do a report on the overseas contracting industry one of these days?

   A couple of highlights.  Obviously the recession is causing many companies to pinch pennies, to include security expenditures for CEO’s and management.  But like the article mentions, the report is not able to get a complete picture on expenditures. With that said, you can still get a lot out of this thing.

   It looks like the top companies are Starbucks, Dell, and Oracle (for disclosed expenditures).  I imagine Apple and Microsoft pay big as well, but that was not disclosed.

   I also thought the listing of companies who had interests in Mexico was telling.  The expenditures for security services for Coke and Citigroup has increased, which makes sense. I imagine many companies with offices and CEO’s located in Mexico, will be paying a premium for protection.

   The final point that made this article really cool, was the mention of security companies who were players in the fortune 500 protection game.  And most of them had blogs! lol  Although I don’t think they are blogging for the same reason I am. Blogs on websites are usually part of the SEO strategy of companies, so they can be more searchable to potential clients.

   Most corporate websites are stagnate, because they don’t get a lot of content coming into the site to make them highly searchable.  You attach a blog to a site and that increases a companies chances of being found in Google Search. That is also why they set up Facebook and Twitter accounts, so they rate high in search.  Either way, I put these companies up on my reader, and I look forward to what they have to say.  I have no clue if they are hiring, but it wouldn’t hurt to send them a cover letter and resume if you are looking for work CONUS. (As a disclosure, I do not work for any of these companies, nor am I endorsing them–just getting the word out) -Matt

Insite Security website here.

Insite Security blog here.

Sexton Executive Security website here.

Sexton Security’s Bullet Proof blog here.

Inter-Con Security Systems website here.

———————————————————————-

CEO security-tabs fall at Google, FedEx and Disney

Starbucks pays more to protect CEO Howard Schultz

By Matt Andrejczak

April 12, 2010

Executives at Kodak and Deere are now paying for their own home-security systems, a sign that executive-security is one perk corporate board’s are scrutinizing more closely.

Indeed, other companies cut back on security expenses, too — especially those known to spend big bucks on protecting their CEO, according to a MarketWatch review of proxy statements filed so far this year by Dow 30 components and larger S&P 500 companies.

The security tab for Google CEO Eric Schmidt fell 42% to $233,542 last year. The bill for FedEx CEO Fred Smith dropped 23% to $461,405, while the cost for Disney CEO Bob Iger dipped 9% to $589,102.

Since 2007, Google has paid $1.1 million in personal security expenses for Schmidt, FedEx has paid $1.5 million for Smith, and Disney has paid $1.9 million for Iger.

Compensation consultant Todd Gershkowitz of Farient Advisors said CEO security is not an egregious perk compared to goodies like country-club memberships, chauffeurs or taxes companies pay on super-sized severance packages for axed CEOs.

But company-provided security “becomes an invasion of privacy, some CEOs don’t want it, some accept it,” said Gershkowitz, who considers CEO security expenditures more of an issue about risk than one of executive perks handed out by directors.

He said he’d like to see more detailed disclosures about CEO security in proxies.

Deere and Kodak won’t pay the bill for residential security anymore, according to their yearly proxy statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Starting this year, Deere said eight executives will have to reimburse the company for security services that had included “drive-by surveillance and response to security alarms” for certain executives by Deere’s corporate security staff.

CEO pay: Who made the big buck in 2009?

Median CEO pay declined for a second year in 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal’s annual CEO pay survey. WSJ’s Erin White talks with David Wise of Hay Group about the survey.

This perk cost Deere less than $19,000 last year, but the exact number is unknown since the tractor maker lumped the cost in with spouses attending company events.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Publications: Report From GAO On Nuclear Private Security Forces

     Efforts to more uniformly manage protective forces have focused on either reforming the current contracting approach or creating a federal protective force (federalization). Either approach might provide for managing protective forces more uniformly and could result in effective security if well-managed. Although DOE rejected federalization as an option in 2009 because it believed that the transition would be costly and would yield little, if any, increase in security effectiveness, the department recognized that the current contracting approach could be improved by greater standardization and by addressing personnel system issues. 

*****

     So why is it that we federalize airport security, yet privatize nuclear security?  I think this GAO report pretty much answers that question as to what direction they think security should go for nuclear facilities.  The folks at DoE and GAO probably had visions of TSA style security as soon as someone brought up the federalization of nuclear facilities, and that probably shut down the idea right then and there. lol

   Any way, I thought they had some interesting conclusions in the report.  Harden up the forces and make them more like the military (training and such), provide one set of standards and pay for all the sites (no brainer there), and insure the contractors are getting taken care of for retirement stuff (so they have incentive to do well, and stay with the program). Sounds good, and I hope this is implemented. -Matt

—————————————————————-

Nuclear Security: DOE Needs to Address Protective Forces’ Personnel System Issues

GAO-10-275 January 29, 2010

Summary

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks raised concerns about the security of Department of Energy’s (DOE) sites with weapons-grade nuclear material, known as Category I Special Nuclear Material (SNM). To better protect these sites against attacks, DOE has sought to transform its protective forces protecting SNM into a Tactical Response Force (TRF) with training and capabilities similar to the U.S. military. DOE also has considered whether the current system of separate contracts for protective forces at each site provides sufficiently uniform, high-quality performance across its sites. Section 3124 of PL 110-181, the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, directed GAO to review protective forces at DOE sites that possess Category I SNM. Among other things, GAO (1) analyzed information on the management and compensation of protective forces, (2) examined the implementation of TRF, and (3) assessed DOE’s two options to more uniformly manage DOE protective forces.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Afghanistan: The Yellow, by Tim Lynch

     So I have been hanging out the last couple of days over at Tim’s blog, Free Range International, and talking about the concept of hybrid remote camps in Afghanistan.  It’s a very simple concept–use civilians to support these smaller outposts to free up the military to do their thing.  Tim’s point was that contractors could totally defend a camp and assist in reconstruction efforts, all while being close to and working with the local populations in these camps for the long term. And because we are limited with troops, adding more contractors to the equation, if done right, could certainly be a force multiplier.  Tim brought up a UN civilian contractor/ Special Forces hybrid remote camp in his post, and I brought up the various camp defense scenarios in Iraq with Blackwater in Najaf and Triple Canopy in Al Kut. The best point I brought up, in my opinion, were the remote camps that were completely supplied, operated and defended by civilians with the CMC (Coalition Munitions Clearance) program in Iraq.

    What we are exploring with this idea, is how do you get the most bang for your buck in this war, and how do you make your combat troops more lethal and efficient?  Our point in the discussion was using contractors to free up the war fighters even more, to get them out into the populations centers and do good things–like kill the enemy or protect and serve the local populations.  

     Civilians can set up man the defense, they can run camp services, they can run logistics operations to supply the camp, they can fix stuff, and do all the menial tasks that take troops away from the fight.  We have already been doing this in Iraq, and to some degree in Afghanistan, but what we are talking about are the small combat outposts that are posted near the villages that we are trying to protect, do road construction and infrastructure projects for, and generally reduce the commute distance between the military and local populations. Tim was making the point that military units come and go, and the continuity of the operation is hindered.  If there was a civilian component that was always there, and always manning the operation, that the local populations could recognize and constantly work with, then that would be good.  All the military has to do is just keep moving in and out of these camps, and focus on bad guys, we can stay and ensure that the promises we made to the villages are being kept and constantly being worked on until finished.  

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

Video: Security Unprecedented for Obama Inauguration

Jobs: Nuclear Security Officer, Florida

G4 Wackenhut

Nuclear Security Officer – Armed

The Wackenhut Corporation

Job Snapshot

Location:

6501 South Ocean Drive

Jensen Beach, FL 34957 ( map it!Map it )

Base Pay:

$42,500 – $54,700 /Year

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,