
Jeff Bezos to keep 75 percent of couple’s Amazon stock after finalizing divorce - adventured
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/mackenzie-bezos-to-keep-25-percent-of-couples-amazon-stock-after-finalizing-divorce.html
======
mindcrime
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.

~~~
Aloha
It appears they just grew apart, rather than a surprise to either party.

~~~
cjbprime
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?

~~~
simonh
No, they were already separated.

------
jedberg
> 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?

~~~
e40
_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.

------
mark_l_watson
Well first of all: my respect to any divorcing/divorced couples to maintain a
cooperative and respectful relationship.

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.

------
whoisjuan
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.

~~~
qmanjamz
Was she the wealthiest female in the world before the divorce?

~~~
fjp
Probably depends on how much of the stock was technically "hers" prior to
divorce proceeding - maybe not much?

------
username223
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).

~~~
ralusek
It's reasonable that someone can forcibly extract 35 billion dollars for being
married to someone?

~~~
username223
"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.

------
adventured
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.

~~~
jedberg
Or another way to look at this is that up until today, she was entitled to 1/2
the wealth, so she dropped down a few places.

------
kgwxd
Who cares? This has no place on HN.

------
netwanderer3
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.

~~~
dpark
You “always believe in 50/50” but “she did the right things here”? This are
fundamentally inconsistent viewpoints.

~~~
netwanderer3
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.

~~~
dpark
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).

~~~
netwanderer3
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:

[https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-
mi...](https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mind-a-lot-
jeff-bezos-smart-people-always-change-their-minds.html)

~~~
dpark
> _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.

~~~
netwanderer3
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.

~~~
dpark
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.

