Glen Kucera, president of the enhanced protection services business unit at Allied Universal, a security and facility services provider, said his firm has also witnessed an increase in inquiries about executive protection services across all industries, but especially from the healthcare, insurance and financial services sectors. How much a corporation spends on executive protection depends on the company itself, their unique risk profile and their budget, Kucera explained.
“It’s a combination of those things and there is no one-size-fits-all plan,” he said. “It usually calls for a custom strategy tailored to best meet the needs of the company while providing the highest possible level of safety for employees, facilities and executives.”
Jeremy M. Baumann, chief executive officer of Corporate Security Advisors, a security consulting firm, said he has been seeing increases in security expenditures from companies of varying sizes, not just the higher profile companies. Baumann noted that having full-time protective personnel is "more rare than most people think historically and is extremely expensive."
Among other precautions, Komendat recommended secure transport for company executives, traveling through non-public entrances, creating a secure buffer zone between attendees and attending company executives, having off-duty plainclothes police officers in the meeting space and outside the venue observing, running through emergency evacuation scenarios, and identifying any known persons of interest with the intent and capability to cause harm.
In general, Kucera noted. there’s protection in privacy.
“Someone can’t cause you harm if they don’t know where you are,” he said. “However, publicly traded companies and public individuals lose a certain amount of privacy. There are meetings, conferences and appearances where people have the right to know the location of an executive at a given date and time. Companies have to strike a balance between being accessible to their investors and ensuring the safety of executives.”
Alan Johnson, founder and managing director of Johnson Associates, a financial services compensation consulting firm, said the murder of Thompson served as a kind of “wake-up call” for asset management firms to upgrade their security precautions for their senior executives.
“Most of these firms already have a degree of security for their executives anyway, but I think the shock of this killing might compel some of these companies to improve security protocols,” he said.
Brian Stephens, senior managing director in Teneo’s Risk Advisory business, said his firm has also observed a “noticeable uptick” in inquiries from asset management firms, pension funds, and other organizations regarding executive protection strategies.
“Tragedies like this often serve as a wake-up call, prompting companies to reevaluate their risk management practices and ensure they are adequately prepared to address evolving threats,” he said. “While there is significant variability in companies investment in CEO security, larger, high-profile organizations have historically allocated significant resources to executive protection. There is a growing recognition across industries that no company is immune to these risks. We are seeing more mid-sized firms reassess their security budgets and adopt protective measures previously seen as exclusive to major corporations.”
Thompson reportedly did not have a bodyguard present when he was shot and killed. Komendat said he is unaware of what security measures were or were not in place for Thompson, so he declined to comment. However, he indicated that his past experiences have shown him that sometimes senior executives “don’t follow the plan.”
Most large companies, Komendat stated, have a “protective intelligence or threat management capability that assesses the validity of threats directed toward their employees, including senior executives.”
While this is not an exact science, Komendat added, there are tools and third-party experts in profiling that can help a security organization “separate those threats and threateners who appear to have the intent and capability to carry out an action.”
Calling Thompson’s recent murder a “tragic, unfortunate incident,” Kucera nonetheless pointed out that there are hundreds of CEOs, executives, high-net-worth and high-profile individuals who walk down the street without protection every day.
“It could happen anywhere and in any area,” he warned. “It proves that even if you aren’t a public figure or controversial figure, there’s risk; especially in certain industries.”
However, Johnson observed that top execs in such sectors as tech, defense, healthcare and insurance would probably be more likely targets for assassins since these are the types of industries “people tend to get mad at.” In addition, most asset management CEOs are largely unknown to the general public and can walk around anonymously.
As for senior executives appearing in public – like at the investor conference where Thompson was scheduled to speak – Johnson said some firms might decide to take a "TSA approach;” that is, adopt the right security standards often found at airports check-ins.
Komendat also said that not all people who make threats pose a threat and some that do pose a threat, never make threats in advance. “That’s why you take other physical security, technical and logistical precautions to make it difficult” for those that may not have shown their intent through a threat,” he noted.
Every company and organization handles threats in their own way, Kucera noted. “In my opinion, all credible threats should be taken seriously,” he added. “There is no harm in having a ‘person of interest’ list that is never used. (But) there is harm in needing to produce a ‘person of interest’ list following a tragedy and not having one.”
To prevent such tragedies in the future, Komendat offered, asset managers, pension funds and institutional investors should “take a hard look at their internal threat intelligence programs. Are they sufficient? Are threats investigated and communicated appropriately? Does the company have the resources (either internal or external) to adequately mitigate such threats? Are they well trained?"
The most high-profile murder attempt of a public figure this year was president-elect Donald Trump, who endured at least one assassination attempt during his campaign. Komendat said he thinks the attempt on Trump, and the incident with Thompson, have shown executives that they must take their personal security more seriously.
Kucera suggests that all asset managers/pension fund security teams assess the security protocols currently in place; conduct a thorough risk assessment; talk to their security provider to understand their vulnerabilities; get a threat-level determination; and establish a budgetary investment.
In a statement released one day after Thompson’s death, United Heath said: “Our priorities are, first and foremost, supporting Brian’s family; ensuring the safety of our employees; and working with law enforcement to bring the perpetrator to justice.”
UnitedHealth could not be reached for comment.
