Jeff Bezos to keep 75 percent of couple’s Amazon stock after finalizing divorce
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
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.
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.
That 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.
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.
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.