Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephengillie | Hacker News Reader

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?

[1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3997659

View on HN

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.

It also helps to find a well-heeled crazy dreamer from a rich family, when looking for a prospect.

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.

Oh it is. 24/7, but not when I'm hanging out with her, or at least I try not to : )

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.

> 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.

http://allthingsd.com/20120519/just-married/

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.

>mere property

Mark's stake in Facebook is a lot of mere property.

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.

"people change and grow over time"

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.

How did Gates (or Jobs, or Bezos) change at all until the day he retired?

I would marry someone I trusted to death and beyond

Of course, but as a rational being you ought to understand you are fallible, and may occasionally misplace trust, no?

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.

Wouldn't he lose the 50+% majority of voting shares?

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.

The ability to pay expenses is a function of cash flow, not wealth.

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.

If you can't talk about a prenup without ruining things, was your relationship stable and mature enough for a marriage?

If you can talk about leaving your partner with nothing, are you in a marriage-caliber relationship?

Strawman. A prenup doesn't mean "leaving your partner with nothing".

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.

A pre-nup pretty much protects what assets you had before the marriage in the case of a divorce.

"'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.

Nice to see a fellow Leykis listen here on HN. Props for the reference.

Almost guaranteed the show will be about this on Monday.

For the unfamiliar: blowmeuptom.com

The hot sauce guy? No wonder so many women are uncomfortable on this site.

> Did Zuckerberg sign a prenuptial agreement? An internet search implies he didn't.

Yes. That's exactly the kind of questions that Google helps you solve.

Given how carefully he has protected his stake thus far, it would be very surprising if he had not done a pre-nup.

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.

He gifted his father some shares, is it that surprising he'd gift his partner/wife shares as well?

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.

Pre-nups address many other things as well including alimony and future earnings.

Given the sheer quantity of eyeballs on this story, I expect that the world would know if it exists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com