Normally I wouldn't have much interest in someone's marital affairs but I find the financial side of how this could play out to be interesting - in terms of the Forbes richest person list as well as the impact of Amazon ownership and majority shareholders.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

I'll let the article do most of the talking, but I don't see how the assets don't get completely split down the middle based on Washington state law. If I'm reading it correctly, I believe this entitles MacKenzie to half of their Amazon stock...

I am hoping it really is amicable but as we all know large dollars can corrupt good intentions.

Tugg

We could blend two topics and debate which of these two should pay for the wall.

wingman wrote:

We could blend two topics and debate which of these two should pay for the wall.

Haha touche!

Maybe that's why they're divorcing!


Kidding aside, we all know that, while on paper the Bezos' are the richest couple in the world, but that wealth is almost entirely locked up in Amazon stock. It would appear the market is (at the moment) not concerned about this as the stock is relatively flat/up just slightly right now.

An editorial note, I really should have labeled the thread title "richest couple" because the assets are both owned equally in the eyes of washington state law. (I believe this to be hte case even if they had a prenup stating otherwise)

Seems like going a long way to go to protect Amazon from a large stock sale. Is Blue Origin in that much trouble?

I think it's possible that she might consider anything over the first billion or so she gets to be little other than an unneeded and unwanted responsibility. He seems to be the one with the insatiable greed. I could be wrong, but why would a person in her position want to involve herself in a long bitter process that has no meaning other than to get even?

Well he may not be the richest once she is done with him. I hope she takes as much as she possibly can. And she can certainly do better as far as looks go.

salttee wrote:

I think it's possible that she might consider anything over the first billion or so she gets to be little other than an unneeded and unwanted responsibility. He seems to be the one with the insatiable greed. I could be wrong, but why would a person in her position want to involve herself in a long bitter process that has no meaning other than to get even?

Because there's a big difference between 1 billion and 65 billion.

I could easily spend a billion dollars no sweat. 65 billion...many more possibilities. Add in a few foundations, setting up non-profits and and a billion dollars goes quick.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Well he may not be the richest once she is done with him. I hope she takes as much as she possibly can. And she can certainly do better as far as looks go.

Blech. What a horrible sequence of things to say especially not knowing nothing about the motives for the divorce.

I recall at some point hearing that, like Zuckerburg and the Gates family, Bezos had committed to donate a considerable amount of his wealth to charity when all is said and done. I hope that commitment is shared by both parties here.

Berevoff wrote:

Add in a few foundations, setting up non-profits and and a billion dollars goes quick.

What you are describing here really just amounts to clamoring for power.
64 billion isn't going to change the world anyway.

salttee wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

Add in a few foundations, setting up non-profits and and a billion dollars goes quick.

What you are describing here really just amounts to clamoring for power.
64 billion isn't going to change the world anyway.

It actually may not matter. State law views the ownership as split equally.

What could happen is in the negotiations, (so as to not disrupt amazon stock etc), she could put in stipulations that her share of the ownership be utilized for charitable reasons. Or perhaps other things.

salttee wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

Add in a few foundations, setting up non-profits and and a billion dollars goes quick.

What you are describing here really just amounts to clamoring for power.
64 billion isn't going to change the world anyway.

I disagree. If someone is entitled to something and them exercising that right doesn't make them greedy or power hungry or anything. Anyone in that position wouldn't give up that cash. If they did they would be foolish.

You might not be able to change the world but you can do much more good with 65 billion than you can with one billion.

If I'm entitled to vacation days and I take them that doesn't mean I'm not a company man and that I'm abandoning my coworkers to lay on a beach- I've earned that right. Same with this.

Berevoff wrote:

salttee wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

Add in a few foundations, setting up non-profits and and a billion dollars goes quick.

What you are describing here really just amounts to clamoring for power.
64 billion isn't going to change the world anyway.

I disagree. If someone is entitled to something and them exercising that right doesn't make them greedy or power hungry or anything. Anyone in that position wouldn't give up that cash. If they did they would be foolish.

You might not be able to change the world but you can do much more good with 65 billion than you can with one billion.

If I'm entitled to vacation days and I take them that doesn't mean I'm not a company man and that I'm abandoning my coworkers to lay on a beach- I've earned that right. Same with this.

Keep in mind we're talking about restricted stock too. So it's not like anyone receiving it can really do much with it either though.

Berevoff wrote:

I disagree. If someone is entitled to something and them exercising that right doesn't make them greedy or power hungry or anything. Anyone in that position wouldn't give up that cash. If they did they would be foolish.

You might not be able to change the world but you can do much more good with 65 billion than you can with one billion.

If I'm entitled to vacation days and I take them that doesn't mean I'm not a company man and that I'm abandoning my coworkers to lay on a beach- I've earned that right. Same with this.

You seem to be taking on several subjects at once.
1. I have the idea that Amazon is his thing, not hers.
2. Re-aranging the deck chairs doesn't accomplish much, and that's about all 64 b will accomplish.
3. Being at the head of some charitable board just means that once in a while she would get to sit at the head of the table while Bill and Milinda sit at her side.
5. The money is going to wind up in charity anyway. Jeff has already said that's his intention.
6. Her whole life is vacation days as much as she wants or as little as she wants. There's no comparison with your position.

She raised his four kids and if the law says 50/50 she'll be getting a massive set of shares in Amazon from this. I doubt they have a prenup to trpmb6's comment. From what I just read they met and got married within 6 months the year before he joined the fledgling Amazon as an accountant. The big negotiation here will likely be severe restrictions on stock sales and Board authority for every transaction..something along those lines.

If anyone has her Tinder profile please send it to me by private message..hell, send Jeff's too.

wingman wrote:

If anyone has her Tinder profile please send it to me by private message..hell, send Jeff's too.

You're too late. I've already set her an E-mail telling her that I'm available.

salttee wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

I disagree. If someone is entitled to something and them exercising that right doesn't make them greedy or power hungry or anything. Anyone in that position wouldn't give up that cash. If they did they would be foolish.

You might not be able to change the world but you can do much more good with 65 billion than you can with one billion.

If I'm entitled to vacation days and I take them that doesn't mean I'm not a company man and that I'm abandoning my coworkers to lay on a beach- I've earned that right. Same with this.

You seem to be taking on several subjects at once.
1. I have the idea that Amazon is his thing, not hers.
2. Re-aranging the deck chairs doesn't accomplish much, and that's about all 64 b will accomplish.
3. Being at the head of some charitable board just means that once in a while she would get to sit at the head of the table while Bill and Milinda sit at her side.
5. The money is going to wind up in charity anyway. Jeff has already said that's his intention.
6. Her whole life is vacation days as much as she wants or as little as she wants. There's no comparison with your position.

1. The company is his but the assets are theirs.
2. Exactly, its rearranging half the deckchairs into her bank account instead of their bank account. Any divorce is the same even if its over $3,000 of assets.
3. And? There's a lot more to it than that as well.
5. And now it'll be her decision to do that if she wants. He'll be able to do what he wants with his.
6. Maybe. I don't know her personally but with the foundation she already has I'd imagine she keeps busy. Good for her though. I'd hope she'd get to eat bon bons on her private yacht as often as she wants.

Apparently he decided to leave her...with the next door neighbour!

I’m here all week.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wingman wrote:

She raised his four kids and if the law says 50/50 she'll be getting a massive set of shares in Amazon from this. I doubt they have a prenup to trpmb6's comment.

My reading of the articles and washington's marriage laws says she's entitled to 50/50 irregardless of a prenup. I'm not even sure a clause in a prenup that says "this prenup takes precedence over state law" would be allowed in court.

So by my estimations, she gets half. My main question (and maybe slight concern?) is how does that half get split, and what happens to the leadership at Amazon.

Maybe

1337Delta764 wrote:

will enlighten us all.

trpmb6 wrote:

My reading of the articles and washington's marriage laws says she's entitled to 50/50 irregardless of a prenup.

No need to make up words, regardless or irrespective have managed the job just fine for centuries.

ChrisKen wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

My reading of the articles and washington's marriage laws says she's entitled to 50/50 irregardless of a prenup.

No need to make up words, regardless or irrespective have managed the job just fine for centuries.

Oops busted!

Well he won't be the richest for at least a few months I suppose. Unless he is running of with Melinda Gates, and she is running off with Bill.

i am also thinking she will get half but with stipulation that the stock will still be owned and controlled by Bezos with the value of the stock considered at anytime she wishes to "cash in" some of her value in them. Her in some type of trust. He can then decide how best to manage giving that equivalent value to her. It prevents loss of control for him and gives her "her half" as needed when needed.

And don't suggest she'll want to "cash in" everything immediately. First I doubt she would as it wouldn't help her or the children, and second the judge won't accept that as logical or equitable either, it would destroy value and harm both the parties involved.

But that is just my guess. The numbers are just too big for anyone to really figure it out easily. As I said I do truly hope it is amicable, no matter what happens their life will be one of ultimate luxury and access and ability if either so wishes.

Tugg

If the posters above are correct, Washington law says it's half hers irregardless of prenuptial agreement.

So that's that.

salttee wrote:

If the posters above are correct, Washington law says it's half hers irregardless of prenuptial agreement.

So that's that.

But Tugger makes a good point, and it is a point i have seen in articles. The Amazon holdings are complicated. There will be some interesting deals there.

Everybody's talking about how they're going to split the wealth.

I'm just sad that after 25 years of marriage, they can't find an amicable solution to their problems other than to give up and try again with someone else.

Lauren Sanchez? Hmmmmm

I am worried about their poor children. I sure hope they won't go without the things every child needs. Like a giant, golden castle on a mountain of rubies with its own delta force and cryogenic crypt.

too bad I'm not his wife

As an old saying goes, a rich man might be poor if money is all he has.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Everybody's talking about how they're going to split the wealth.

I'm just sad that after 25 years of marriage, they can't find an amicable solution to their problems other than to give up and try again with someone else.

We really have absolutely zero insight into what efforts they have or have not made towards saving their marriage. It very well could be that splitting *is* the most amicable solution. Publicly they've said they will remain close friends and partners in the various foundations and charitable ventures they've started.

Sometimes splitting can be the best option for the children - they may not realize it at the time - but years later they may come to see that to be the case (I know I have).

That being said, this is one of the reasons I was a little hesitant to post about this - but in the end, it's fairly newsworthy considering the sums of wealth involved.

NIKV69 wrote:

Lauren Sanchez? Hmmmmm

I have heard that too but without any timeline. They could have been "exploring" separating for a year or more and at some point began being able to be with others.
We may never know but there will be many people trying to dig any dirt they can.

Tugg

salttee wrote:

I think it's possible that she might consider anything over the first billion or so she gets to be little other than an unneeded and unwanted responsibility. He seems to be the one with the insatiable greed. I could be wrong, but why would a person in her position want to involve herself in a long bitter process that has no meaning other than to get even?

Why would it be long and bitter, it appears at the moment to be quite amicable, she should be entitled to half, after 25 years marriage and being there before the money rolled in she’s no gold digger either.

Kiwirob wrote:

salttee wrote:

I think it's possible that she might consider anything over the first billion or so she gets to be little other than an unneeded and unwanted responsibility. He seems to be the one with the insatiable greed. I could be wrong, but why would a person in her position want to involve herself in a long bitter process that has no meaning other than to get even?

Why would it be long and bitter, it appears at the moment to be quite amicable, she should be entitled to half, after 25 years marriage and being there before the money rolled in she’s no gold digger either.

It so often turns out that way. Once lawyers get involved, people's outlook often take a turn for the worse. But now that the State of Washington's law has been said to mandate a 50-50 split, my point is moot. If she wants half she gets half and even if it gets bitter, it won't take long.

My point also was that extreme wealth is also a burden. It has to be managed and some people have blown it.

Has anyone ever blown 65 billion before? I know I’d spend a few million on cars, a few hundred million on an exploration yacht, a private jet and some homes, that would all come to less than 1 billion, so what would you have to do to blow 65 of them?

Kiwirob wrote:

Has anyone ever blown 65 billion before? I know I’d spend a few million on cars, a few hundred million on an exploration yacht, a private jet and some homes, that would all come to less than 1 billion, so what would you have to do to blow 65 of them?

Not necessarily one person but I bet the east india company screwed up royally enough to do so

TTailedTiger wrote:

Well he may not be the richest once she is done with him. I hope she takes as much as she possibly can. And she can certainly do better as far as looks go.

A woman can make a man a millionaire, if he's already a billionaire.

Kiwirob wrote:

Has anyone ever blown 65 billion before? I know I’d spend a few million on cars, a few hundred million on an exploration yacht, a private jet and some homes, that would all come to less than 1 billion, so what would you have to do to blow 65 of them?

Getting oneself to the head of the table in a gathering of international philanthropists.

Well - she must be a smart woman. She - as an accountant - probably sees Amazon being at its peak, anticipates drop in margins, and decided that it’s time to cash out.

Who cares really...Look she was with him when he made is fortune she deserves half for sure. If she had come into the marrage after he made his fortune I would have a different opinion.

I remember not even a year and a half ago her being quoted saying that they sexiest thing Jeff does for her is him doing the dishes.

Either that was literal or something else happened.

Things just got interesting, as Jeff Bezos has published this letter, accusing The National Enquirer, and David Pecker of blackmail and extortion:

https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-th ... 6e3922310f

The New York Times article describing the circumstances in which this story is unfolding:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/tech ... kmail.html

As being noted by the New York Times, American Media Inc (the owner of The National Enquirer) has a signed non-prosecution agreement with the Southern District of New York prosecutors in which they agreed to not commit any crimes for 3 years over their involvement over the payments to women for Donald Trump. If this rises to the level of criminal prosecution, this could jeopardize their non-prosecution agreement with the SDNY.

I wonder if Bezos will sue AMI like WWE's Hulk Hogan did to gossip news site Gwaker and put them out of business. The Gwaker case set a very dangerous precedent, what is to stop AMI from suing Bezos owned Washington Post company to try to put it out of business ?

The connection of AMI and of Bezos and WP is that the WP has been openly reporting about the scandals and criminal allegations of Donald Trump before and as President while AMI's National Enquirer has supported Trump and killed stories that would hurt him. The key but not the only ones were the payoffs to Stormy Daniels and 1 other women to keep quiet about their having sex for money with Trump during the 2016 campaign that then Trump's lawyer Cohen's criminal case was a major part of. AMI was granted a no-prosecution deal to give them their evidence to use in the prosecution of Cohen. Cohen was sentenced on 2/7 to 3 years in jail for criminal violations for his part in that cover up deal for Trump.

Apparenty there are e-mails where AMI tried to extort or blackmail Bezos over pictures that were stupid to have done in the first place but someone who had access to them decided to use them to make money or who knows, maybe as part of the coming divorce battle of Bezos. AMI has plenty of reason to want to go after Bezos and the WP but they are messing with the wrong person who won't take their extortion and with so many billions he could buy them out and shut it down or sue them out of existence. While the National Enquirer is garbage, sometimes they do get out stories of scandal we should know and to silence them may mean many others in media further silenced about the crimes and awful behaviors our politicians and others we need to know.

ThePointblank wrote:

Things just got interesting, as Jeff Bezos has published this letter, accusing The National Enquirer, and David Pecker of blackmail and extortion:

https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-th ... 6e3922310f

The New York Times article describing the circumstances in which this story is unfolding:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/tech ... kmail.html

As being noted by the New York Times, American Media Inc (the owner of The National Enquirer) has a signed non-prosecution agreement with the Southern District of New York prosecutors in which they agreed to not commit any crimes for 3 years over their involvement over the payments to women for Donald Trump. If this rises to the level of criminal prosecution, this could jeopardize their non-prosecution agreement with the SDNY.

Is this the 1st instance of a National enquirer story being true ? Whenever I've been in the USA and seen a copy at the supermarket checkout I've just assumed its a comic living in a fantasy world

So, a guy who constantly publishes personal information on other people is pissed off because someone published information on him?

ThePointblank wrote:

Things just got interesting, as Jeff Bezos has published this letter, accusing The National Enquirer, and David Pecker of blackmail and extortion:

Hasn't that been their business model for decades? I'm not sure what's new or different.

Pyrex wrote:

So, a guy who constantly publishes personal information on other people is pissed off because someone published information on him?

Bezos publishes personal information on other people?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

So, a guy who constantly publishes personal information on other people is pissed off because someone published information on him?

Bezos publishes personal information on other people?

Mav, you haven't ever seen the WaPo's Dick Pic pages? Replete with ads like "Pay us, John Smith, or Li'l John will be here next week!"

jetero wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

So, a guy who constantly publishes personal information on other people is pissed off because someone published information on him?

Bezos publishes personal information on other people?

Mav, you haven't ever seen the WaPo's Dick Pic pages? Replete with ads like "Pay us, John Smith, or Li'l John will be here next week!"

I must have missed those...

ThePointblank wrote:

As being noted by the New York Times, American Media Inc (the owner of The National Enquirer) has a signed non-prosecution agreement with the Southern District of New York prosecutors in which they agreed to not commit any crimes for 3 years over their involvement over the payments to women for Donald Trump. If this rises to the level of criminal prosecution, this could jeopardize their non-prosecution agreement with the SDNY.

I wonder if 3 years of not committing any crimes includes not blackmailing people

In addition to the obvious connection to President Bozo:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 1983073280

The Saudi Arabia connection is great. AMI published this almost a year ago:

https://nypost.com/2018/04/24/the-stran ... heartland/



What a confederacy of (extraordinarily corrupt) dunces.

MaverickM11 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Things just got interesting, as Jeff Bezos has published this letter, accusing The National Enquirer, and David Pecker of blackmail and extortion:

Hasn't that been their business model for decades? I'm not sure what's new or different.

Pyrex wrote:

So, a guy who constantly publishes personal information on other people is pissed off because someone published information on him?

Bezos publishes personal information on other people?

Tax returns are personal information. So are communications under attorney-client privilege.