Facebook is the best thing that's ever happened to me. The people from my past that I really don't want to converse with are likely tied up in their simple little Facebook world by now. Let them wonder why I'm not on Facebook. Problem solved!
It's ok, the tracking cookie they leave on your machine while you're logged out will eventually correlate to a login session and they'll have your browsing history anyway.
I mean, I know it's interesting to think about how you manage Facebook and a marriage at the same time, but this news doesn't seem god-thankingly urgent.
EDIT: Ah, sarcasm. The bane of net conversations everywhere.
As erdemozkan stated in a duplicate discussion: Mark married Priscilla one day after the IPO. That means they were waiting for IPO to get married.
Sorry for asking a question that may seem obvious to others, but why were they waiting for the IPO? Is it for financial or legal reasons, such as a Community Property State?
Did Zuckerberg sign a prenuptial agreement? An internet search implies he didn't. This reminds me of Tom Leykis' advice that everyone have a prenup, for many reasons. On the other side, some spouses have created companies by divorcing a business owner and taking half of the company.
How has Mark Zuckerberg protected his ownership of Facebook from his marriage? How would you?
> While the date of the wedding was timed to Zuckerberg’s birthday and Chan’s graduation, the IPO was a moving target, our source says, and was definitely not part of the whole plan.
My understanding is that he's been with this girl since Facebook started anyway. I'd be surprised if she did not have a fair stake in Facebook even if she were not married to Mark.
Why would she have shares? If she wasn't an employee I don't see why she would. I mean Mark might have given her some as an anniversary gift/etc at some point, but you don't get shares in a company just for dating the founder. Although I suppose she could have been part of a friends/family founding round.
It may be different in the USA, but in many countries there are legal limits on what a pre-nup can actually cover. If the relationship pre-dates the foundation of the country, it isn't unrealistic that she would have some claim on "Mark's" assets should they break up in the future.
For what it is worth, this is really very poor taste.
He doesn't really need one. Facebook is a premarital asset and he has no other assets. In California anything you own before marriage is yours including the gains on those assets and you can take money out and spent it on other things and as long as you can trace it back to the premarital money then your good to go.
I would marry someone I trusted to death and beyond, compared to which trusting with mere property is trivial. Yes, it's a risk... there's a saying about risk, though, isn't there?
Let's give Mark the benefit of the doubt and assume he's marrying for love.
No matter what, a divorce will never leave him not incredibly rich. He might care about something that’s not mere property (like always keeping control over Facebook until he decides he doesn’t want to anymore), but as long as we are talking about mere property, the amount should make it easier.
The couple may be madly in love today, but human emotions are fickle and people change and grow over time. Sadly, there may come a day when both are more concerned with the future of the FB empire than with each other.
How true and as anyone who has been through divorce will confirm.
In addition to the potential problem with what would be marrying simply a normal or a successful person I can't even begin to imagine the challenges of a marriage to someone with that much money and job responsibility. And no question marriage will detract from his work life (especially if he decides to have children). That even happened to Bill Gates as anyone who remembers the Gates before marriage will attest to.
Prenups really kill the mood. "I love you til death do us part"—but if you turn out to be a bitch I'm totally cutting you off.
Lots of aspects of marriage, and society in general, don't stand up to rational scrutiny. We're not just fallible, we're downright wooey. That doesn't mean these institutions are valueless or predatory—just that the human experience is not primarily about the rational.
I could see this one either way. Maybe if you're a billionaire, the prenup makes it clear you're marrying for love rather than profit. From down here in the sub-sub-sub-billionaire world, it doesn't look that way, but who knows? Lots of things are different "at scale."
Losing half your wealth when things go south also kills the mood. You are right it comes down to rational vs emotional decision.
From what I have seen of the public persona of Mark you would think there would be something there. The guy has carefully crafted deals up to this stage to ensure he keeps maximum control.
Losing half your wealth should have approximately zero effect. Any computer scientist will tell you that "a factor of two is close enough".
I'm joking, but there's a hint of truth here. I can't imagine any level of wealth at which suddenly having half (or twice) as much would make any difference to me at all. A factor of two either way really wouldn't change my life appreciably.
If I worked for years on my business, married a woman, and then she cheated on me and now gets half due to the divorce. It wouldn't really be the money that bothers me. It would be that that this despicable person gets half of my stuff.
If you don't think that this will happen, it does. In the US court systems, the woman pretty much has all of the power. If she cheats on you and has a baby with another guy, you most likely will end up paying child support.
I can't imagine any level of wealth at which suddenly having half (or twice) as much would make any difference to me at all.
You sure about that? I think $40k down to $20k could be a pretty jarring transition, especially if you have established expenses like dependents or a mortgage.
Money is, perhaps, replaceable, but losing the family farm that has been in the family for seven generations would be a sad day though. I've seen it happen before.
Getting a pre-nup is pretty much going through the work of a divorce, but before you get married. He wouldn't leave her with nothing, unless she found her lawyer from the bus station bench.
"'Til death do us part" comes from one view on marriage, which not all people share. For one thing, there has been no mention of a religious ceremony of any kind in the reports I've seen.
Trust aside, people who truly love each other and are honest with each other sometimes do get into a relationship ending fight or stop feeling the spark they once did and break up. If two people know each other deeply enough to get married, their communication is hopefully open enough to be able to have a rational discussion about anything, including prenups, without hurting the other by bringing it up. After such discussion, if they come to the decision that the existence of the prenup would psychologically decrease the success rate of their marriage, they are welcome not to enter into such an agreement. But if they don't feel that that's the case, it makes a lot of logical sense to have one.
Disclaimer: I'm not married, and I honestly don't know which camp I'll fall into.
He didn't "wait until the IPO" according to people who knew, he waited for her to graduate. The timing of the IPO is very hard to predict given it requires sign off by the SEC, graduation on the other hand, pretty easy.
I don't doubt for a minute that they have some sort of agreement in place in the event of a separation. While most might think such an agreement would benefit Mark, the real beneficiary are Facebook shareholders if splitting up required selling shares to split proceeds. That could really move the stock unreasonably.
However, as I know a number of people who are (some of whom merely were :-) very very wealthy, they share a common difficulty in dating post wealth. Not that every potential spouse is a "gold digger" but the people who are inclined to be one come out of the wood work apparently. It can be a very sad thing, being lonely and knowing how that makes you a target. So having someone you know (and knew) when you were just a crazy dreamer, and they still wanted to be with you, is a very priceless thing.
So having someone you know (and knew) when you were just a crazy dreamer, and they still wanted to be with you, is a very priceless thing.
Amen. I agree, minus the prenup part though - I'm not cynical about Mark/Priscilla's love for each other because of your last sentence there, like I highly doubt that the Gates have that kind of arrangement either. As someone who's young, crazy, and laser-focused on the startup game, and still so far away from where I want to be in life, that's something that's in the back of my mind all the time whenever I'm seeing someone special. Thanks for the comment.
> As someone who's young, crazy, and laser-focused on the startup game, and still so far away from where I want to be in life, that's something that's in the back of my mind all the time whenever I'm seeing someone special.
Shouldn't you keep "I should get rich first" in the back of your mind instead? You can always not marry them.
I don't think that gold diggers are of particular danger for wealthy people. It's more a matter of convenience. Zuck is focused on Facebook, he simply does not want to spend time dating/searching for someone else.
Man, this kid is having the time of his life right now. How can any guy beat IPO + married in two days? Good for him, and take that vacation while you still can!
From what I hear, the pressure starts to build when your a public company. Those quarterly earnings should be interesting.
Yeah, pressure from people who have authority to fire you. I don't think that's the case for Zuckerberg.
"Even after the IPO, Zuckerberg remains Facebook's single largest shareholder, with 503.6 million shares. And he controls the company with 56 percent of its voting stock." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47491836/ns/business/)
Does anyone know what sort of recourse the minority shareholders and the other 44% voting holders have if Mark runs the company into the ground?
Unfortunately people do plan to run companies into the ground (usually so they can exit the smoking shell with a fat profit) which is why these laws are necessary.
that depends. to the ground financially? if ads click-through wont progress and they wont find mobile revenue model, it will be extremely hard for Zuck to keep users happy AND keep this operation running (financially, that is).
Err... is it normal for there to be recourse? If you do not have a controlling interest, you do not have control. That's that. If you aren't comfortable with that, sell.
Shareholders may bring suit against an officer on behalf of a company. It is designed to protect minority investors against exactly the scheme Zuck has set up. The corporation is the benefactor of any damages to prevent abuse by shareholders.
"According to David Kirkpatrick's book, The Facebook Effect, Zuckerberg met Chan while in line to use the bathroom at a Harvard University party. The pair dated on and off again in college, but maintained a relationship as the Facebook CEO rose in prominence in the technology world."
What really interests me, at this point, how do you know that she truly loves him?? Its hard to know that when regular people like me and you date, and here we are having a pair that dated "on and off" for a while and now one side got filthy rich.
Perhaps I am spoiled and I never loved anyone, but in his shoes, I would have never really believed she is in it for love. Sorry.
On the other hand the reality is that divorce does happen and for people with $20 billion fortunes is different. I wonder if the Google founders have prenups in place.
Though to be fair, if you have a lavish lifestyle and go from $20bn to $10bn, I suspect it's going to hurt a lot less than having say $4m and losing half.
It may not be about the money. If Prescilla has played a major role in making Facebook the $100B company then its OK. However there is no point splitting the company in half, because she was married to the founder. There is no need to demonize prenups here.
It's not just about money. If he has a majority share, and she ends up divorcing him and taking half of whatever she can get, it may destabilize the company. At that point, it's not just about Mark and his wife, there are jobs and people's well being's hanging in the balance.
This is very off-topic, but then again, the entire thread more or less is. So with that disclaimer: does anyone else think he looks like a much, much slimmer, younger Michael Caine?
I'd guess that the first two are coincidence, and the latter two chosen. Interesting to try and see a person just through the purity of fact of choice rather than media narrative.
I see a lot of posts regarding gold-digging and motives - and I just want to say that if there's one person you can marry knowing what their true intentions are, the only thing better than a college girlfriend is a high-school one :)
Absolutely. Gotta hand it to a couple who's kept it together for over nine years, through the birth and growing pains of an unprecedented company, and med school to boot.
I believe Zuck believes Facebook is the vehicle for these announcements and interactions, ergo his play. The announcement via FB is fair and true. I think it's a good move.
I'm disheartened to see it right after the IPO. It's rare a wedding happens overnight, let alone an IPO, so it feels deliberate to me.
And yet, given how blindsided they were with Beacon and its ilk, I can imagine the circumstance being nothing more than.
People should be happy for Zuck and Pricilla. Any claims by those who don't know Pricilla that this is other than for love should really get a check-up on their humanity. Not that they'll ever read this, but congrads to them both.
Frankly that's all that needed to be said. No talk about pre-nups, IPO's or Facebook. Just that a high profile, but obviously loving couple tied the knot. Makes me smile just thinking about it.
You don't know them, I'm fairly confident. I don't know them. Almost no one here knows them. The single and only reason this has any relevance is because of Facebook, IPOs, from which a natural discussion is pre-nups, etc. Or are we to all pretend that we're pals?
It's inspiring for me that Mark went through such an incredible ordeal in the founding of Facebook but he was still able to make it work between him and Priscilla. It shows that you can have a relationship while also trying to change the world (and, hell, your partner may be what gets you through).
I don't understand some of the materialistic comments (prenups etc.) on this thread. Zuck marrying his long time love is a beautiful blessing. PG, I'd met Zuck after you had invited him to your startup school 2007 and since then have interacted with him. He also kept his word on followups he'd announced during his talk then. He is such a humble person despite all his successes. I'm so happy for him.
Chan's ring featured only a "very simple ruby," a source authorized by the couple to speak told the AP.
That explains why she isn't smiling :) . Seriously people, smile for crying out loud. You know billions of people will see that picture over the years.
eh, this comment seems like a fractal snapshot of the whole thread.
why on earth do you feel any kind of right to be telling some random people you don't know how to behave? why does hn feel the need to have some private moment from these people's lives on the front page? why does this matter to me, a hacker? but is a wedding private? isn't it a public statement? why does a hacker like zuckenberg (sp?) need to make a public statement like this (i've been living w the same person for 20 years and neither of us see a need to get married)? and why rings? what the kind of ancient property-related crap is that? but that gets back to public statements. and why can't he do his tie up - he looks a mess? and now am i as bad as the person i am replying to?
and most of all, why take a photo with their washing line in the background?
223 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 256 ms ] threadBut then again, I don't have friends, so I don't see the need.
Facebook account. But have an upvote. I seem to be pretty short on friends of late as well.
Take care.
I mean, I know it's interesting to think about how you manage Facebook and a marriage at the same time, but this news doesn't seem god-thankingly urgent.
EDIT: Ah, sarcasm. The bane of net conversations everywhere.
Edit: great handle too!
California would shred through it anyway.
Sorry for asking a question that may seem obvious to others, but why were they waiting for the IPO? Is it for financial or legal reasons, such as a Community Property State?
Did Zuckerberg sign a prenuptial agreement? An internet search implies he didn't. This reminds me of Tom Leykis' advice that everyone have a prenup, for many reasons. On the other side, some spouses have created companies by divorcing a business owner and taking half of the company.
How has Mark Zuckerberg protected his ownership of Facebook from his marriage? How would you?
[1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3997659
http://allthingsd.com/20120519/just-married/
Yes. That's exactly the kind of questions that Google helps you solve.
For what it is worth, this is really very poor taste.
Let's give Mark the benefit of the doubt and assume he's marrying for love.
Mark's stake in Facebook is a lot of mere property.
No matter what, a divorce will never leave him not incredibly rich. He might care about something that’s not mere property (like always keeping control over Facebook until he decides he doesn’t want to anymore), but as long as we are talking about mere property, the amount should make it easier.
How true and as anyone who has been through divorce will confirm.
In addition to the potential problem with what would be marrying simply a normal or a successful person I can't even begin to imagine the challenges of a marriage to someone with that much money and job responsibility. And no question marriage will detract from his work life (especially if he decides to have children). That even happened to Bill Gates as anyone who remembers the Gates before marriage will attest to.
Of course, but as a rational being you ought to understand you are fallible, and may occasionally misplace trust, no?
Lots of aspects of marriage, and society in general, don't stand up to rational scrutiny. We're not just fallible, we're downright wooey. That doesn't mean these institutions are valueless or predatory—just that the human experience is not primarily about the rational.
I could see this one either way. Maybe if you're a billionaire, the prenup makes it clear you're marrying for love rather than profit. From down here in the sub-sub-sub-billionaire world, it doesn't look that way, but who knows? Lots of things are different "at scale."
From what I have seen of the public persona of Mark you would think there would be something there. The guy has carefully crafted deals up to this stage to ensure he keeps maximum control.
I'm joking, but there's a hint of truth here. I can't imagine any level of wealth at which suddenly having half (or twice) as much would make any difference to me at all. A factor of two either way really wouldn't change my life appreciably.
If you don't think that this will happen, it does. In the US court systems, the woman pretty much has all of the power. If she cheats on you and has a baby with another guy, you most likely will end up paying child support.
You sure about that? I think $40k down to $20k could be a pretty jarring transition, especially if you have established expenses like dependents or a mortgage.
Disclaimer: I'm not married, and I honestly don't know which camp I'll fall into.
I don't doubt for a minute that they have some sort of agreement in place in the event of a separation. While most might think such an agreement would benefit Mark, the real beneficiary are Facebook shareholders if splitting up required selling shares to split proceeds. That could really move the stock unreasonably.
However, as I know a number of people who are (some of whom merely were :-) very very wealthy, they share a common difficulty in dating post wealth. Not that every potential spouse is a "gold digger" but the people who are inclined to be one come out of the wood work apparently. It can be a very sad thing, being lonely and knowing how that makes you a target. So having someone you know (and knew) when you were just a crazy dreamer, and they still wanted to be with you, is a very priceless thing.
Amen. I agree, minus the prenup part though - I'm not cynical about Mark/Priscilla's love for each other because of your last sentence there, like I highly doubt that the Gates have that kind of arrangement either. As someone who's young, crazy, and laser-focused on the startup game, and still so far away from where I want to be in life, that's something that's in the back of my mind all the time whenever I'm seeing someone special. Thanks for the comment.
Shouldn't you keep "I should get rich first" in the back of your mind instead? You can always not marry them.
Almost guaranteed the show will be about this on Monday.
For the unfamiliar: blowmeuptom.com
I'm not all about hating on a man just like you and I, just because he made it and we didn't (haven't?).
From what I hear, the pressure starts to build when your a public company. Those quarterly earnings should be interesting.
"Even after the IPO, Zuckerberg remains Facebook's single largest shareholder, with 503.6 million shares. And he controls the company with 56 percent of its voting stock." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47491836/ns/business/)
Does anyone know what sort of recourse the minority shareholders and the other 44% voting holders have if Mark runs the company into the ground?
It still occurs with unsurprising regularity. Lots of interesting books out there which talk about why.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_suit
Given how long such lawsuits take, it will of course be too late by then.
Oh, really? What are they going to do with 40% of the stock while MZ has 60%?
Maybe they will fire him and he wont be able to feed his family. It must be so stressful.
IPO and not married?
What really interests me, at this point, how do you know that she truly loves him?? Its hard to know that when regular people like me and you date, and here we are having a pair that dated "on and off" for a while and now one side got filthy rich.
Perhaps I am spoiled and I never loved anyone, but in his shoes, I would have never really believed she is in it for love. Sorry.
Monday: she earned her MD.
Friday: Facebook goes public.
Saturday: they get married, to the surprise of their guests. [1]
[1] http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-zuckerbe...
Amazing!
Jokes aside, not many can boast a week like that. Wow!
(Kinda like Mr and Mrs Obama)
Congratulations!
http://cl.ly/0S0Q1D1D2c1y1I42393B
Yet, it seems to be fact.
I believe Zuck believes Facebook is the vehicle for these announcements and interactions, ergo his play. The announcement via FB is fair and true. I think it's a good move.
I'm disheartened to see it right after the IPO. It's rare a wedding happens overnight, let alone an IPO, so it feels deliberate to me.
And yet, given how blindsided they were with Beacon and its ilk, I can imagine the circumstance being nothing more than.
tl;dr: I don't understand Zuckerberg or Facebook.
Congratulations to them both as well.
You don't know them, I'm fairly confident. I don't know them. Almost no one here knows them. The single and only reason this has any relevance is because of Facebook, IPOs, from which a natural discussion is pre-nups, etc. Or are we to all pretend that we're pals?
Congratulating on his FB or Twitter would be more effective :)
I don't understand some of the materialistic comments (prenups etc.) on this thread. Zuck marrying his long time love is a beautiful blessing. PG, I'd met Zuck after you had invited him to your startup school 2007 and since then have interacted with him. He also kept his word on followups he'd announced during his talk then. He is such a humble person despite all his successes. I'm so happy for him.
That explains why she isn't smiling :) . Seriously people, smile for crying out loud. You know billions of people will see that picture over the years.
why on earth do you feel any kind of right to be telling some random people you don't know how to behave? why does hn feel the need to have some private moment from these people's lives on the front page? why does this matter to me, a hacker? but is a wedding private? isn't it a public statement? why does a hacker like zuckenberg (sp?) need to make a public statement like this (i've been living w the same person for 20 years and neither of us see a need to get married)? and why rings? what the kind of ancient property-related crap is that? but that gets back to public statements. and why can't he do his tie up - he looks a mess? and now am i as bad as the person i am replying to?
and most of all, why take a photo with their washing line in the background?