Hacker News Reader

Comment by braza | Hacker News Reader

The most shocking aspect of this murder is the fact that I S&P 100 CEO did not have any kind of security around, especially being from an industry that deals with so sensitive business like insurance.

It's bonkers to me that the board of this company did not know that he did not have any personal security, and definitely someone somehow will open a lawsuit to uncover that.

If a S&P 100 CEO is so approachable like this, what this company board thinks that it would hold someone to threaten or kidnap the CEO himself or it's family members to get some advantage?

View on HN

Given how many claims UHC denied it'd be real hard to find trustworthy security guards. Any one of them could have family or friends that suffered due to denied claims, something that (probably) won't show up on background checks.

> The most shocking aspect of this murder is the fact that I S&P 100 CEO did not have any kind of security around, especially being from an industry that deals with so sensitive business like insurance.

Brian Thompson was not a "S&P 100 CEO" (that's UnitedHealth Group, whose CEO is Andrew Witty), he was the CEO of a subsidiary (UnitedHealthcare).

Unless you know someone is trying to kill you it can be safer to give yourself a lower profile by not having security.

I am not a CEO, but I am pretty sure that after the company becomes a national entity there are some specific insurances specialized for this kind of individual and the board provides some security at company expenses [1].

For instance: The shareholders of Tesla know that it has a huge dependency on the services of Elon Musk, and the continuity and value of the business rely upon his ability to work (i.e. not being dead); I strongly believe that if the board of directors does not allocate security services to keep the continuity of his life (i.e. to keep him working) I would be surprised that it wouldn't be a gross breach in their fiduciary duties.

[1] - https://fortune.com/2024/09/14/tech-billionaire-ceos-securit...

[2] - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312510...

Tesla is a unique case in that their overvaluation is very much tied to elon personally. Elon is also a public and recognizable figure. Security is usually to keep the crazies away, not the dedicated attacker. If you're a nonpublic figure you don't have to worry about being recognized and attacked by random crazy people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com