Obviously a lot of details have not been made public, but as high-profile / high-stakes divorces go, this all seems remarkably amicable. At least based on what's been reported publicly.
Wait, wasn't the surprise that either the Saudis (reportedly) hacked his phone (or maybe her brother found them), found out that he was having an affair, sent the sexts to the National Enquirer who reported on them, making the affair's existence known to her?
> In some states, adultery is a crime, although it is rarely prosecuted. In states that still recognize fault-based divorces, adultery has more of an impact. If a man begins dating during a legal separation in one of these states, and if his wife can prove that the relationship is sexual in nature, she can usually file for divorce on grounds of adultery. This can affect issues of property distribution and alimony. However, some states, such as North Carolina, make a legal distinction between dating during separation and dating while living together as man and wife.
Bezos lives in Washington. Adultery is not a crime in Washington nor is it recognized as relevant in divorce proceedings. i.e. Washington is a “no fault” state.
"grew apart" is a not how reality works.
A relationship by nature "disintegrates" if you don't work hard to sustain it.
This seems incredibly narrow-minded, it is 100% possible for a couple to realize their dynamic as two people just doesn't work as well in a romantic relationship as it does platonically, and if both parties are emotionally mature enough with it, they can absolutely part ways and still maintain a healthy ordinary friendship post courting.
Asserting that such a phenomenon isn't "how reality works" seems like a weird projection of whatever personal expectations and hang-ups you have about how relationships work.
It absolutely "can" be but that's wholly separate from making an declarative statement about what reality "is" for people who chose to terminate their romantic relationships or why.
And sorry if you feel that was a "personal attack" because I posited that such an arbitrary and unsubstantiated declaration about the reality of relationships might be coming from a mindset that doesn't give attention to the nuances and idiosyncrasies of relationships or the decisions individuals make in them.
"Growing apart" is not something that _happens_ to an intimate relationship such as a marriage, it is the natural consequence of the priorities of the two individuals involved. To stay intimate with another requires an enormous amount of investment of both parties.
So yes, growing apart does take place, but it is the effect not the cause.
It is fun to have power I am sure, and the money that comes with it, but this guy has so much money I honestly think it just doesn't matter to him any more. Time to just enjoy his life. And that can be done with half the billions he has. Best of luck to him and her.
I guess she's made pace with the cheating fact. It happens. After that, at that level you must be vindictive (and dumb) to drag the name /reputation through the mud of a divorce court. She's about 50 and can spend about $1 Billion a year. Or hundreds of millions a year forever to be conservative...what more do you want, money wise?
Her share of Amazon is still worth $35.6 billion, making her something like the #25 richest person in the world. It seems reasonable, but my intuition sucks when it comes to money piles that big. She could start her own rocket company, with enough left over to buy an Elon Musk (#41).
"Forcibly extract?" They were married for over 25 years, since long before he was a gazillionaire, so it hardly seems like gold-digging. Also, Jeff still has more or less infinite money.
It's funny how these richest people lists calculate people's worth. When Jeff Bezos and his wife were together, all of their assets were considered his alone.
That is sort of messed up now that I think about it. I didn't even know if Warren Buffett was married, though I sort of assumed he had married his high school sweetheart 50 years ago. It turns out I wasn't so far off, though Susan Buffett owned a well-defined share of Berkshire Hathaway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Buffett
Just for perspective. This makes her the third wealthiest female in the world and not very far from the first place which is held by Françoise Bettencourt (L'Oreal) whose net worth is 46 billion.
> MacKenzie said she was "happy" to be giving Jeff 75 percent of their stock in Amazon along with voting control of her shares. She also left Jeff with all of her interests in the Washington Post and Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos' aerospace company, according to the statement.
This makes a lot of sense. They probably both realize that the stock could be worth significantly less if he didn't maintain control of all three companies, given that the market was already reacting to that possible outcome.
> Jeff remains the richest man in the world, even after losing $35.6 billion in Amazon stock.
I wonder if part of this settlement was because he actually cares about being the richest person in the world and she was kind enough to make sure he stays that way?
I wonder if part of this settlement was because he actually cares about being the richest person in the world and she was kind enough to make sure he stays that way?
I think you already answered it. I think she's smart enough to know the value of what she has will be more certain if Jeff has control.
And she's also smart enough to know that $35B is way more than she could ever spend/use/invest/whatever.
I'm sure she cares about her own legacy and wants to make a name for herself like Melinda Gates, Priscilla Chan, and Laurene Powell Jobs. Obviously would be more difficult if Jeff drags her through the mud.
> I wonder if part of this settlement was because he actually cares about being the richest person in the world and she was kind enough to make sure he stays that way?
I doubt it. What is he getting from that title, at all? His already obnoxiously rich. He is totally willing to divest just to put money into risky bets like Blue Origin. He even bought a newspaper, in what I believe was a personal move to deeply understand the role of press in society development and policy making (because all other reasons are stupid, as already proven by the multiple issues that have originiated from his association with WaPo).
I think he has a goal that goes beyond being the richest person in the world or at least it doesn't depend on that. His personal bets under a investment light are the oppostie of trying be the richest person in the world. I suspect that's not his goal.
I always believe in 50/50 but i think she did the right things here because Jeff Bezos = Amazon. There comes a point in which having more money just does not make any slightest difference.
I think this poster is saying she's entitled to 50%, but it's a wise move on her part to accept 25% instead. If that's what they meant, those are not inconsistent viewpoints.
In normal circumstances which applied to most public population, a 50/50 split of shares is fair.
But Jeff Bezos doesn't belong to a normally distributed population, his is an outlier case statistically, with Amazon being an extremely important asset that not only affects their personal lives, but also has enormous impacts and responsibility to the public.
Jeff Bezo's personality and leadership are crucial for the organization. You can't apply the same principles to his case vs. the majority of public.
The key to being effective is the ability to recognize the differences in special circumstances, and knowing how to be flexible so you can adapt to those situations. I can tell it's not easy for most people.
One of the biggest problems today is most people only perceive the world as either black or white, and there are no "in-between", or "grey-zones", or "outliers". But the real world in our lives has never worked like that. This viewpoint is producing a lot of narcissists and their "you are either with me or against me" attitude, which subsequently contributing to a lot of hatreds around us.
Emotionally intelligent people are the ones who truly understand the meaning of the word "compromise", in order to produce a win-win result. That's what separates them from the rest.
I don’t understand why you’re headed down tangents about narcissism and emotional intelligence, and I’m not going to bother engaging on all of that because it’s irrelevant and seems mostly about you asserting not-so-subtly that you’re smarter than everyone else.
What I will say is that you shouldn’t speak in absolutes if that’s not a position you actually hold. You rambled about black and white while you ignored that you made a black and white statement initially, which is why I replied at all: ”I always believe in 50/50”.
Replace “always” with “generally” and there wouldn’t be a conflict in what you wrote, and I wouldn’t have replied, and you likely wouldn’t have gotten downvotes (which I presume were for the inconsistency in your comment).
When I mentioned of "emotional intelligence", I was referring to Mackenzie Bezos, for her willingness to compromise because she clearly understood how important Jeff's shares and voting rights were to Amazon. Not everyone could have seen or acted in such manner. This was why I said she did the right things.
Your multiple attempts in replying, not only to my personal comment but also to others', indicated you were seeking a proper explanation for my "inconsistent viewpoints". That was what prompted me to address the issue of many people in today world who don't seem to possess the ability to pivot under special circumstances, only because they are just so rigid in holding to their previous beliefs, no matter it was right or wrong.
The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability.
Based on your last comment, I am not sure if you truly understood the benefits of such "inconsistent viewpoints", so I will leave you with a short link below. It also happens to be about Jeff Bezos the man himself:
> The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability.
This is borderline word salad. Convoluted writing doesn’t make a weak point look strong. It does make you harder to understand, but maybe that’s your intent.
You’re now trying to frame this as me holding you to some previous viewpoint that you’ve since renounced, but that’s not what happened. You expressed two contradictory viewpoints in a single sentence.
At this point I’m assuming you just misspoke and are unwilling to admit even that small error, because the alternatives are that you literally don’t understand what “always” means or that you are unable to see the logical inconsistency between “always X” and “this time Not-X”.
I think you should take another look at your own replies here, because while you talk about narcissism in others, you’re the one exhibiting an inability to acknowledge your own errors and a need to accuse those who point out your errors of lacking basic reasoning abilities.
You are literally the one that are trying very hard to hold onto the technicality of my wordings, and twisted it such a way to fit in your interpretation and criticism of my comment, while I have already given you more than enough explanation on my part regarding my message.
The wordings in my comment are completely irrelevant here, whether it should have been "always" or "generally". The main point being discussed here is you are obviously viewing "inconsistent viewpoints" as a negative trait while in fact it is positive and desirable in my personal interpretation.
My previous comments were simply an analysis of the current world trends which I have observed. I even clarified to you that I was referring to McKenzie Bezos so I am unsure why you were being so defensive and even aggressive in accusing me of such.
Let's just leave it here as we should never force our own personal views onto others. I have provided more than enough of my personal opinions on this subject. Everyone has the rights to interpret the world in whichever ways they wish that fit with their personal ideologies.
Wording is not irrelevant. Your comment didn’t make sense. I took the time to explain what was wrong with your comment rather than just downvoting quietly like others had. Your response was to go down the defensive path and to argue irrelevant tangents rather than take a moment to consider that maybe you expressed your viewpoint poorly. You’re now accusing me of “twisting” your comment by literally quoting it. Inability to be self-critical is not a positive trait.
I agree we should let this drop since it’s going nowhere and we’ve both wasted enough time.
P.S. Your article was about changing opinions, not holding or presenting opposing opinions simultaneously.
I think a rigid 50/50 is the wrong way to go about it.
Just because you are in love with someone does not mean they provided half the value you both accrued while together. Taking half of what someone else accomplished just because the laws force you to do it doesn't mean that it is legitimately theirs. It just means the laws are in place to allow such an injustice.
This depends on each person's viewpoint and their perspective in life.
A family with children may have a husband being the main source of income while his housewife stays at home to look after their children and property.
Just because the husband is the only one working does not mean his wife is not contributing equally in raising their kids and maintaining their family. The husband himself is personally responsible for those same tasks his wife is doing at home, and should have been doing them himself too. We can't single out the money source as the only element in a relationship, while completely ignoring other efforts that might have provided even higher values than just monetary wealth. This again traces back to each individual's value and belief system.
The purpose of the law is to uphold justice. You really think they didn't consider it before drafting and implementing such laws?
People keep fighting for equal rights at work places or in society, but then conveniently turn around and say 50/50 is not fair when the moment comes to decide on their own portion of shares.
That's why the laws are flexible enough to allow people the ability to sign pre-marriage contracts for those who are too concerned with that. They can't bend the laws for their own mistake after failing to be responsible for themselves.
Though I do agree that a rigid 50/50 should not be applied to every situation as there will always be special cases that are outliers.
Not to mention, she married him in 1993 -- before Amazon existed and they had met when she was a research associate at the hedge fund that they both worked at. She graduated from a very prestigious prep school and then with highest honors from Princeton. She was there for every step of the Amazon journey and would have been successful on her own.
According to Bloomberg MacKenzie Bezos becomes the fourth richest woman in the world via the Amazon position, worth ~$35.75 billion, and the 25th richest person overall.
Francoise Bettencourt Meyers, whose mother owned 1/3 of L'Oreal until her death a few years ago, is the richest woman in the world ($53.6b). After that is Jacqueline Mars (Mars candy empire) and Alice Walton (Walmart heir).
MacKenzie is only 48 years old, it'll be interesting to see what she pursues with her time and money.
Up here in the PNW I see tons of people every day living out of tents or cars. This guy loses tens of billions of dollars and remains the wealthiest person in the world.
62 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadThat said, to maximize the value of the few percent of Amazon stock that she now owns, giving voting rights to Jeff Bezos is a good move.
Is that code for "Bezos had an affair"
https://info.legalzoom.com/can-married-men-legally-separated...
> In some states, adultery is a crime, although it is rarely prosecuted. In states that still recognize fault-based divorces, adultery has more of an impact. If a man begins dating during a legal separation in one of these states, and if his wife can prove that the relationship is sexual in nature, she can usually file for divorce on grounds of adultery. This can affect issues of property distribution and alimony. However, some states, such as North Carolina, make a legal distinction between dating during separation and dating while living together as man and wife.
Caveat: I’m not a lawyer.
It's entirely possible some form of pre/post-nuptial agreement exists, as well.
Guess that's just excuse for doing what you want before officially ending things with your current wife/spouse/gf.
A relationship by nature "disintegrates" if you don't work hard to sustain it.
But you are right that no one should be surprised, the outcome is as predictable as gravity and is bound by the same natural laws.
This seems incredibly narrow-minded, it is 100% possible for a couple to realize their dynamic as two people just doesn't work as well in a romantic relationship as it does platonically, and if both parties are emotionally mature enough with it, they can absolutely part ways and still maintain a healthy ordinary friendship post courting.
Asserting that such a phenomenon isn't "how reality works" seems like a weird projection of whatever personal expectations and hang-ups you have about how relationships work.
More importantly, please state your disagreeing opinion without the condescending personal attack smacked on.
And sorry if you feel that was a "personal attack" because I posited that such an arbitrary and unsubstantiated declaration about the reality of relationships might be coming from a mindset that doesn't give attention to the nuances and idiosyncrasies of relationships or the decisions individuals make in them.
So yes, growing apart does take place, but it is the effect not the cause.
Post-divorce he'll have $112 billion. So, yes.
smart for both parties' stock
This makes a lot of sense. They probably both realize that the stock could be worth significantly less if he didn't maintain control of all three companies, given that the market was already reacting to that possible outcome.
> Jeff remains the richest man in the world, even after losing $35.6 billion in Amazon stock.
I wonder if part of this settlement was because he actually cares about being the richest person in the world and she was kind enough to make sure he stays that way?
I think you already answered it. I think she's smart enough to know the value of what she has will be more certain if Jeff has control.
And she's also smart enough to know that $35B is way more than she could ever spend/use/invest/whatever.
I doubt it. What is he getting from that title, at all? His already obnoxiously rich. He is totally willing to divest just to put money into risky bets like Blue Origin. He even bought a newspaper, in what I believe was a personal move to deeply understand the role of press in society development and policy making (because all other reasons are stupid, as already proven by the multiple issues that have originiated from his association with WaPo).
I think he has a goal that goes beyond being the richest person in the world or at least it doesn't depend on that. His personal bets under a investment light are the oppostie of trying be the richest person in the world. I suspect that's not his goal.
When you are in their position, it is more important to be fair to each other, which is then the 50:50.
I think this poster is saying she's entitled to 50%, but it's a wise move on her part to accept 25% instead. If that's what they meant, those are not inconsistent viewpoints.
If 50/50 is the “right thing” then 75/25 is by definition not the “right thing”.
But Jeff Bezos doesn't belong to a normally distributed population, his is an outlier case statistically, with Amazon being an extremely important asset that not only affects their personal lives, but also has enormous impacts and responsibility to the public.
Jeff Bezo's personality and leadership are crucial for the organization. You can't apply the same principles to his case vs. the majority of public.
The key to being effective is the ability to recognize the differences in special circumstances, and knowing how to be flexible so you can adapt to those situations. I can tell it's not easy for most people.
One of the biggest problems today is most people only perceive the world as either black or white, and there are no "in-between", or "grey-zones", or "outliers". But the real world in our lives has never worked like that. This viewpoint is producing a lot of narcissists and their "you are either with me or against me" attitude, which subsequently contributing to a lot of hatreds around us.
Emotionally intelligent people are the ones who truly understand the meaning of the word "compromise", in order to produce a win-win result. That's what separates them from the rest.
What I will say is that you shouldn’t speak in absolutes if that’s not a position you actually hold. You rambled about black and white while you ignored that you made a black and white statement initially, which is why I replied at all: ”I always believe in 50/50”.
Replace “always” with “generally” and there wouldn’t be a conflict in what you wrote, and I wouldn’t have replied, and you likely wouldn’t have gotten downvotes (which I presume were for the inconsistency in your comment).
Your multiple attempts in replying, not only to my personal comment but also to others', indicated you were seeking a proper explanation for my "inconsistent viewpoints". That was what prompted me to address the issue of many people in today world who don't seem to possess the ability to pivot under special circumstances, only because they are just so rigid in holding to their previous beliefs, no matter it was right or wrong.
The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability.
Based on your last comment, I am not sure if you truly understood the benefits of such "inconsistent viewpoints", so I will leave you with a short link below. It also happens to be about Jeff Bezos the man himself:
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mi...
This is borderline word salad. Convoluted writing doesn’t make a weak point look strong. It does make you harder to understand, but maybe that’s your intent.
You’re now trying to frame this as me holding you to some previous viewpoint that you’ve since renounced, but that’s not what happened. You expressed two contradictory viewpoints in a single sentence.
At this point I’m assuming you just misspoke and are unwilling to admit even that small error, because the alternatives are that you literally don’t understand what “always” means or that you are unable to see the logical inconsistency between “always X” and “this time Not-X”.
I think you should take another look at your own replies here, because while you talk about narcissism in others, you’re the one exhibiting an inability to acknowledge your own errors and a need to accuse those who point out your errors of lacking basic reasoning abilities.
The wordings in my comment are completely irrelevant here, whether it should have been "always" or "generally". The main point being discussed here is you are obviously viewing "inconsistent viewpoints" as a negative trait while in fact it is positive and desirable in my personal interpretation.
My previous comments were simply an analysis of the current world trends which I have observed. I even clarified to you that I was referring to McKenzie Bezos so I am unsure why you were being so defensive and even aggressive in accusing me of such.
Let's just leave it here as we should never force our own personal views onto others. I have provided more than enough of my personal opinions on this subject. Everyone has the rights to interpret the world in whichever ways they wish that fit with their personal ideologies.
I agree we should let this drop since it’s going nowhere and we’ve both wasted enough time.
P.S. Your article was about changing opinions, not holding or presenting opposing opinions simultaneously.
Just because you are in love with someone does not mean they provided half the value you both accrued while together. Taking half of what someone else accomplished just because the laws force you to do it doesn't mean that it is legitimately theirs. It just means the laws are in place to allow such an injustice.
A family with children may have a husband being the main source of income while his housewife stays at home to look after their children and property.
Just because the husband is the only one working does not mean his wife is not contributing equally in raising their kids and maintaining their family. The husband himself is personally responsible for those same tasks his wife is doing at home, and should have been doing them himself too. We can't single out the money source as the only element in a relationship, while completely ignoring other efforts that might have provided even higher values than just monetary wealth. This again traces back to each individual's value and belief system.
The purpose of the law is to uphold justice. You really think they didn't consider it before drafting and implementing such laws?
People keep fighting for equal rights at work places or in society, but then conveniently turn around and say 50/50 is not fair when the moment comes to decide on their own portion of shares.
That's why the laws are flexible enough to allow people the ability to sign pre-marriage contracts for those who are too concerned with that. They can't bend the laws for their own mistake after failing to be responsible for themselves.
Though I do agree that a rigid 50/50 should not be applied to every situation as there will always be special cases that are outliers.
How generous of her. Never marry...
Francoise Bettencourt Meyers, whose mother owned 1/3 of L'Oreal until her death a few years ago, is the richest woman in the world ($53.6b). After that is Jacqueline Mars (Mars candy empire) and Alice Walton (Walmart heir).
MacKenzie is only 48 years old, it'll be interesting to see what she pursues with her time and money.
Tax billionaires out of existence.