5 ms·

I wonder if the Bezos-Scott divorce will be a warning sign for entrepreneurs. In what could have been a 50/50 split, Bezos walked away with 100% of their Washi

by awb 6y ago

I wonder if the Bezos-Scott divorce will be a warning sign for entrepreneurs. In what could have been a 50/50 split, Bezos walked away with 100% of their Washington Post and Blue Origin interests and 75% of their Amazon shares and 100% of their Amazon voting rights. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jeff-bezos-finalizes-divorce-keeps-75-percent-amazon-shares-n991031 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jeff-bezos-finalizes-di... What was by far the most expensive divorce in history was actually heavily weighted in Bezos' favor as far as divorces go. Partners that sacrifice their education or careers to raise children or manage a household should definitely be compensated in a divorce such that they can land on their feet and are set up for success post-partnership, but for entrepreneurs, a 50/50 splits puts even founders with majority voting rights in danger of losing their companies. It's easy to justify Bezos' wealth after transforming eCommerce, shipping, cloud computing and more. It's harder to justify Scott's $38B ($1.5B per year of marriage) when comparing her to other partners or mothers. I could see taking a partner's past (or projected) earning potential and compensating that amount. Let's say Scott gave up what reasonably could have been a $500k / year job, that would be $12.5M + 25 years compound interest in the divorce. The value she gave up for the sake of the partnership has been restored and the value Bezos created has been preserved. If there's a divorce between two partners who are also business partners, then 50/50 makes a lot more sense.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cbozeman 6y ago
Jeff himself has said Amazon would not exist without Mackenzie... so I think not only is he perfectly happy with the outcome of the divorce, I think everyone was able to walk away, if not happy, at least satisfied. However, you are of course speaking in broad terms, and I also happen to think you're correct. I know this was a concern for Elon Musk at one point. How much of a concern, I don't know, but I definitely remember reading about it. This is really sticky sort of problem, wherein it seems good solutions are few and far between.
- CerealFounder 6y ago
  Is it? It only becomes a problem retroactively. It's like two athletes, one out plays the value of his contract and the other underplays. Do you think both deals should be reworked after theyve been inked based on outcome?
- kamaal 6y ago
  >>Jeff himself has said Amazon would not exist without Mackenzie... :) Men say a lot of things to their wives that can't be literally true. You have to say these things to ensure they don't feel useless in what is the most successful business of the century. When you are in a relationship, especially if you are the CEO of Amazon, you don't exactly speak in clojure.core.logic you use a lot of poetic metaphors to ensure your spouse feels important and relevant to your world shattering cause. Smarter people like Trump make their spouse sign a book thick nuptial agreements. Im sure the women themselves don't really care, getting married to a billionaire is something nearly all women in the world don't get an opportunity to do. There are also couples like the Clintons who understand how it all works, and are pragmatic enough to move on.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    Well Jeff said that to interviewers. So take that for what its worth.
  - arolihas 6y ago
    Smarter people like Trump... You realize bezos and Scott got married before there were any significant assets that would necessitate a nuptial agreement right? Whereas trump was born absurdly wealthy
teruakohatu 6y ago
> In what could have been a 50/50 split, Bezos walked away with 100% Maybe Scott didn't care. She has a net worth in the 10s of billions (and deserves every cent). Would a few 10s of billions make any difference to her life? It probably would have made a difference to Bezos because he runs the Amazon machine and it would have diminished his power. The voting rights make sense, her wealth is also tied to investor confidence. She would only lose money by spooking investors, and maybe she does not care about power. I am sure if she wanted full voting rights a judge would have agreed it was fair. > will be a warning sign for entrepreneurs. This is the historical equivalent of an empire being divided up. It sets no precedent for anyone.
- awb 6y ago
  > She has a net worth in the 10s of billions (and deserves every cent). I guess I tend to assume that the partner of overseas military raising kids alone for long periods of time, or the partner working night shifts to save for their child's college education, or the partner that is always parenting because they can't afford a nanny, or the partner that makes Christmas special on a shoestring budget, etc. would be as equally if not more deserving, yet they don't even get 1/100,000th of this settlement. The sole determination of a partners worth in a divorce settlement is their partners income, regardless of their sacrifices or contributions. I'd rather see something merit based or earning potential based, even though I realize it's impossible to do that fairly or accurately. But to suggest Scott deserves every penny I think wreaks of unfairness to amazing partners that were left high and dry in a divorce for the sole reason that their partners didn't become millionaires or billionaires. We can't give every amazing partner $38B, but we could try to make it more equitable for all partners with similar backgrounds and earning potential.
  - teruakohatu 6y ago
    > But to suggest Scott deserves every penny I think wreaks of unfairness to amazing partners Wait, what? Me suggesting a woman deserves a significant portion of the company she helped found somehow diminishes another person? She didn't win this in the lottery nor was she given a gift or inheritance, this was simply how assets were divided up. How much do you think she should have gotten and how much should Bezos have been left with?
conk 6y ago
Why do you assume Scott gave up a 500k/year job? For all we know she left an opportunity worth much more. Also Bezos/Amazon’s success wasn’t guaranteed. Using the benefit of hindsight to evaluate how to split assets now is not reflective of how decisions were made 20 years ago.
- awb 6y ago
  I didn't assume her earning potential to be exactly $500k/year, it was just an example. Let's say it was $10M/year, that would still only be $250M. But I doubt anyone could claim to have sacrificed a $1.5B/year opportunity or that they were 100,000x better of a parent / partner than someone that walks away from a divorce with $15k/year of marriage. I don't think it's unreasonable to put some type of cap on a divorce settlement based on projected earning power.
CerealFounder 6y ago
This is an awful take. You dont know anything about the dynamic of their relationship or even how Scotts direct actions affected Bezos decisions or ability to function. What if Scott was the reason he felt he could take a bigger swing or if with her by his side he was able to maintain a family and his business goals. I know your intention isnt sexist but even the idea that the role of partner should be arbitrated on a case by by case basis leaves the person who volunteered not to pursue further education in financial and business matters with the burden of having to explicitly articulate their financial contributions. A relationship is an open eyed partnership and this idea that the opportunity cost on the person who stays home is just earnings is toxic to entrepreneurs who want to chase their dreams and build a stable family
adventured 6y ago
> I wonder if the Bezos-Scott divorce will be a warning sign for entrepreneurs. The answer to that is: no. Absolutely nothing of consequence has changed about marital considerations for entrepreneurs in the past several decades. That is regardless of the big Bezos divorce (ie that didn't change anything, there was nothing interesting or new about it; it's merely an agreement that Jeff and his wife came to as a split).
d33lio 6y ago
Fortunately for me, I've never really been able to see the value in long term permanent relationships. Granted, I'm borderline autistic, which doesn't help, but I'm also very selfish with my time and like to have options open. The one thing I dread the most is chaining myself to another person. Some people like this, I dread it. I've had a number of them, never to the point of getting married. But as likely it is I'll never accomplish Bezos wealth, I'm just as likely to not deal with a 50/50 divorce of all my assets to some woman.

by awb 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cbozeman 6y ago

Jeff himself has said Amazon would not exist without Mackenzie... so I think not only is he perfectly happy with the outcome of the divorce, I think everyone was able to walk away, if not happy, at least satisfied. However, you are of course speaking in broad terms, and I also happen to think you're correct. I know this was a concern for Elon Musk at one point. How much of a concern, I don't know, but I definitely remember reading about it. This is really sticky sort of problem, wherein it seems good solutions are few and far between.

CerealFounder 6y ago
Is it? It only becomes a problem retroactively. It's like two athletes, one out plays the value of his contract and the other underplays. Do you think both deals should be reworked after theyve been inked based on outcome?
kamaal 6y ago
>>Jeff himself has said Amazon would not exist without Mackenzie... :) Men say a lot of things to their wives that can't be literally true. You have to say these things to ensure they don't feel useless in what is the most successful business of the century. When you are in a relationship, especially if you are the CEO of Amazon, you don't exactly speak in clojure.core.logic you use a lot of poetic metaphors to ensure your spouse feels important and relevant to your world shattering cause. Smarter people like Trump make their spouse sign a book thick nuptial agreements. Im sure the women themselves don't really care, getting married to a billionaire is something nearly all women in the world don't get an opportunity to do. There are also couples like the Clintons who understand how it all works, and are pragmatic enough to move on.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Well Jeff said that to interviewers. So take that for what its worth.
- arolihas 6y ago
  Smarter people like Trump... You realize bezos and Scott got married before there were any significant assets that would necessitate a nuptial agreement right? Whereas trump was born absurdly wealthy

teruakohatu 6y ago

> In what could have been a 50/50 split, Bezos walked away with 100% Maybe Scott didn't care. She has a net worth in the 10s of billions (and deserves every cent). Would a few 10s of billions make any difference to her life? It probably would have made a difference to Bezos because he runs the Amazon machine and it would have diminished his power. The voting rights make sense, her wealth is also tied to investor confidence. She would only lose money by spooking investors, and maybe she does not care about power. I am sure if she wanted full voting rights a judge would have agreed it was fair. > will be a warning sign for entrepreneurs. This is the historical equivalent of an empire being divided up. It sets no precedent for anyone.

awb 6y ago
> She has a net worth in the 10s of billions (and deserves every cent). I guess I tend to assume that the partner of overseas military raising kids alone for long periods of time, or the partner working night shifts to save for their child's college education, or the partner that is always parenting because they can't afford a nanny, or the partner that makes Christmas special on a shoestring budget, etc. would be as equally if not more deserving, yet they don't even get 1/100,000th of this settlement. The sole determination of a partners worth in a divorce settlement is their partners income, regardless of their sacrifices or contributions. I'd rather see something merit based or earning potential based, even though I realize it's impossible to do that fairly or accurately. But to suggest Scott deserves every penny I think wreaks of unfairness to amazing partners that were left high and dry in a divorce for the sole reason that their partners didn't become millionaires or billionaires. We can't give every amazing partner $38B, but we could try to make it more equitable for all partners with similar backgrounds and earning potential.
- teruakohatu 6y ago
  > But to suggest Scott deserves every penny I think wreaks of unfairness to amazing partners Wait, what? Me suggesting a woman deserves a significant portion of the company she helped found somehow diminishes another person? She didn't win this in the lottery nor was she given a gift or inheritance, this was simply how assets were divided up. How much do you think she should have gotten and how much should Bezos have been left with?

conk 6y ago

Why do you assume Scott gave up a 500k/year job? For all we know she left an opportunity worth much more. Also Bezos/Amazon’s success wasn’t guaranteed. Using the benefit of hindsight to evaluate how to split assets now is not reflective of how decisions were made 20 years ago.

awb 6y ago
I didn't assume her earning potential to be exactly $500k/year, it was just an example. Let's say it was $10M/year, that would still only be $250M. But I doubt anyone could claim to have sacrificed a $1.5B/year opportunity or that they were 100,000x better of a parent / partner than someone that walks away from a divorce with $15k/year of marriage. I don't think it's unreasonable to put some type of cap on a divorce settlement based on projected earning power.

CerealFounder 6y ago

This is an awful take. You dont know anything about the dynamic of their relationship or even how Scotts direct actions affected Bezos decisions or ability to function. What if Scott was the reason he felt he could take a bigger swing or if with her by his side he was able to maintain a family and his business goals. I know your intention isnt sexist but even the idea that the role of partner should be arbitrated on a case by by case basis leaves the person who volunteered not to pursue further education in financial and business matters with the burden of having to explicitly articulate their financial contributions. A relationship is an open eyed partnership and this idea that the opportunity cost on the person who stays home is just earnings is toxic to entrepreneurs who want to chase their dreams and build a stable family

adventured 6y ago

> I wonder if the Bezos-Scott divorce will be a warning sign for entrepreneurs. The answer to that is: no. Absolutely nothing of consequence has changed about marital considerations for entrepreneurs in the past several decades. That is regardless of the big Bezos divorce (ie that didn't change anything, there was nothing interesting or new about it; it's merely an agreement that Jeff and his wife came to as a split).

d33lio 6y ago

Fortunately for me, I've never really been able to see the value in long term permanent relationships. Granted, I'm borderline autistic, which doesn't help, but I'm also very selfish with my time and like to have options open. The one thing I dread the most is chaining myself to another person. Some people like this, I dread it. I've had a number of them, never to the point of getting married. But as likely it is I'll never accomplish Bezos wealth, I'm just as likely to not deal with a 50/50 divorce of all my assets to some woman.