The 1.7 Million Dollar Man


1. Uh, it's his company and he can spend it however he wants?

2. Do you have any information on whether or not there are any credible threats to justify the expense? If not, see #1.
@1 - no, it's not. He is not the sole shareOWNER, just one of them. Hence, a reasonable question.
The iPad is after him.
It's a bargain. If something bad happened to Jeff, the company could lose a billion in market-cap overnight. If you don't like it, you can always sell your shares.
If the comments over there are correct, it may include his private jet, which would explain virtually all of it.

How much security do other top execs typically carry? More than you probably think.
@3 - actually, if leveraged properly (hint - not like what MSFT is doing) Amazon could get lots of revenue from the iPad, especially if they pushed hard on the EU to crack open the Apple store binding for the iPad. But that would take guts.
@6, just because you heard the word "leveraged" on Bloomberg doesn't mean you know what it means. You don't.
He was an asshole, but I used to see Kerry Killinger strolling around downtown Seattle all the time. I don't think Wamu was budgeting millions for his protection.
Sure this seems like a lot to me, but I bet if you could calculate the amount my company pays on security for just me (by dividing total by the number of employees and subtracting the amount for facilities and property - but including my company laptop and cubicle stuff) and compare it to the money spent on Bezos and consider the amount of worth he brings to the company relative to the amount I bring... probably comparable if not a discount.

And while I feel that Amazon - and everybody else with cash - should give money to local or national ventures, it's a total non sequiter and no more relevant than whether or not the fact that they have a smiley face logo means they should be nicer.
If you don't like it, you can always sell your shares.
Yes, because if the last few years have taught us anything, it's that executive profligacy is adequately checked by the drive to protect shareholder value.
Dude, Bezos has way more than a giggling problem. That man has the most unsettling laugh out of anyone I've ever met.
@7 - really? Man, and I took all those accounting classes for my first degree ... let me tranch this sandwich into collateral sandwich obligations and short it with some mustard and I'll get back to you ...

Maybe the security is there to protect the rest of us from Bezos. He could snap at any moment...
Isn't his salary around 87K annually?

Wow Seattle, a little bitchy towards someone who has almost SINGLE HANDEDLY added jobs (be it technical, construction, security guard) to Seattle.

tisk, tisk.
God, for a guy who's supposedly straight, Paul can sure be a whiny little cunt sometimes.
@13 - no, you're thinking about Microsoft's CEO. He throws a wicked chair ...
Could also be that his insurance requires a high degree of security as part of his coverage--I'm guessing the board approves this because it is reasonable risk management, not because it's an insane perk (like continuing to pay Jack Welch's salary after he retired).
one question: why not buy some stock and give your opinion to the proper channels? who are you to say what amazon does with their money? they hate books, love money, and their owner is paranoid.... gee that explains about every big company. where's the news?
When you are worth billions, security becomes a very high priority. For a years worth of security the price seems reasonable. @9 - bingo. @ 15 - lol. Paul, you are ant screaming at Everest. Oh and I finally saw a pic of you online. You look like the type of douche who goes to a prom in a hummer limo in a pimp get up, turned failed hipster. Nutshell: Douchester. I know. Petty. Just like your weekly crying about Amazon. Side note: I've heard they are expanding and hiring. This is great news for the local unemployed.
Jeff takes a very small salary (last I knew, the $87K figure was correct). I'm not sure I understand the 1.7M figure, but honestly, this isn't news. This tidbit floats across the news every few years. Once again, Paul Constant has added absolutely nothing to anyone's knowledge about Amazon.
I would assume this is for top notch security that is available in the private sector like constant sweeping of the home and office. Having Jeff monitored in any way is a huge risk to share holders. Successful bugging would be a huge compromise for the company. Paul, think bigger or else appear small. This post comes off petty. So I assume it's personal. Oh and please review more books and less CEOs please. Just a personal preference. Thanks.