10/10/15

Mod Note (Andy): Best of Eddie, this was originally posted in January 2011.

With Valentine's Day two short weeks away, some of your girlfriends are no doubt ratcheting up the pressure on you to pop the question on the most romantic day of the year. Maybe you already live together. Maybe you've been going out for a few years. Maybe you met her in a Chelsea dive bar on Tuesday. It's no matter. They all want the same thing.

Allow me to introduce Charles Brandes. Sure, he's a big shot today pulling in an estimated $16 million a month, but he wasn't always. He was once just a young monkey like all of you. And therein lies his cautionary tale. For it was at that point in his career that he met Linda King Formo, a single mother earning $6 an hour as a librarian.

Brandes started his own firm in 1974 and was content to grow his AUM over the subsequent decade. He met Formo in 1983 and, after a three-year courtship, they were married in 1986. Even though he wasn't a BSD yet (he made about $180,000 in 1986), he obviously went into the marriage with some reservations, evidenced by the pre-nuptial agreement he presented to her which she refused to sign.

Let me say that again for the cheap seats, because it's important that you get it. He presented her with a pre-nuptial agreement and she refused to sign it. She allegedly told him at some point before the wedding that, "I will have no claim or interest in your business", but she denies ever saying it and it's impossible to prove and not legally binding anyway.

Fast forward 18 years to 2004. The marriage is over, and they're in divorce court. Charles is now a very big deal, and the lifestyle he has lavished on Linda could be described as over the top by any sane measure. By California statutes, he can only be forced to pay her $36,400 per month in spousal support but, either out of genuine concern for his soon-to-be ex-wife or his desire to head her off at the legal entanglement pass, Charles gives her a home in Rancho Santa Fe, a beach house in Del Mar, a Central Park penthouse and two other Manhattan condos, and two condos in Salt Lake City. To alleviate any liquidity concerns she might have, he throws in $18.7 million in cash.

Guess what?

It's not enough.

The interest alone on the money he gave her generates $155,000 a month. He throws another $350,000 a month into the pot, bringing her monthly income to a staggering $500,000. But she's just scraping by, and has now set her sights on the $140 million he has in various S-Corporations. The reason she can't make ends meet?

  • $30,000 a month at the casinos
  • $340,000 Mercedes Maybach
  • Upkeep on her various mansions
  • The 210 pairs of shoes in her closet
  • Half a million a month doesn't go as far as it used to, yo

Just so you don't think she's not deserving, she'll tell you she was instrumental in his success. How? She convinced him to dress better, get a nose job, and she busted his balls to work harder 'cause mama needs new shoes.

Guys, I hope you see where I'm going with this. You might be worthless today, but chances are you won't always be. You pay for car insurance, health insurance, life insurance (if you don't, you should). Why would you leave such an obvious financial vulnerability unprotected?

The best advice I can give is don't get married. Ever. There's just no percentage in it for a young guy with significant earning potential. Especially if there's a major income disparity between you and your significant other (hedge fund manager vs. $6 an hour librarian).

But I've been married three times myself. Just so I don't sound like a hypocrite, if you must get married - by all means protect yourself. A pre-nup doesn't mean you love little Susie Rottencrotch any less. And she won't hesitate to sign it, if her intentions are pure. If she does hesitate, that should tell you something.

Have a great weekend, guys, and don't fall into the Valentine's Day trap.

Comments (154)

Best Response
1/28/11

Eddie, I have to say, most of your posts are spot on - but I'm really disappointed to see you advise these young monkeys not to get married for simple concern of money. There is a lot, lot more to life than making a sht ton of money and hoarding it away. I myself am happily married, under 30 ys old, own a house in westchester and have a 1yr old kid at home. I'd give my career up in a second for my family - if keeping my family meant cleaning toilets at yankees stadium, I'd do it without question.

Did I ask my wife to sign a pre-nup? No.
Do I hope my marriage works out? Of course.
Will it suck if it ends 20 years down the line, and I lose 50% of my life's work? Absolutely.
But you pick up the pieces and move on.

We're all risk takers. Marriage is a calculated risk. Find the right girl, and make her yours.

I'd offer this advice to all young monkeys out there - if you find a girl you genuinely love, if she loves you, if neither of you are the cheatin' type - and if you've lived together for a few years without problems - marry her. Just know she'll go downhill after 35. It happens.

Guys, there is so, so much more to life than making 7 figures or being a BSD. You can make millions upon millions, at the end of the day the only thing you leave behind on this earth are your children - that's the impact you'll have on the world. Deals fade into history, nobody will remember them in 50 years - but your kids - keeping your family name alive - that's impactful.

If the single lifestlye is your thing, great. Some guys are cool living alone their whole lives and dying rich and alone. Good for you. It's just not my thing.

Step 1: Dream the Dream || Step 2: Live the Dream || Step 3: Rinse, repeat.

1/28/11

I'm intrigued in this part, being a bystander (not getting married while these kind of stories go around, not because I'm scared but you can bag some serious hotties).

Does anyone know how does a court force you to declare all your financial assets and income? They can go by tax returns, but not if you're registered to a Cayman Island company or to a government that doesnt recognise the court's jurisdiction (hi china).

T

1/28/11

Don't kid yourself. The courts don't have anything to do with it. If you're worth anything over $500,000 liquid, the first thing your wife's divorce attorney is going to do is hire a forensic accountant to find all your ratholes.

1/28/11

Sad story. I just got married so I can't comment like I know anything, but I can't picture my life without her. If I lost her, it would be worse than losing all of my money (which I have none right now anyway--plus she is working and supporting me while I go to Business school. When she waited a year for me while I was in Iraq I think that showed her character as well. If I am successful one day it will be because she was my supporting co-pilot in life, and for that reason if we ever split, I think 50% is fair.

1/28/11

Eddie, I appreciate you writing that directly to me...but not to worry...if I got married, I couldn't come run with the bulls with you and the boys this summer!! The bulls are much safer in the short and long-run...Viva Encierro!

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail...but a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"

1/28/11

I would't go for that risk. I just reassured myself ex-wife has an accident and relax. Surely cheaper than other options. And accidents just happen.

"Make 'Nanas, not war! "

1/28/11

Solid advice. And Jerrey, accidents cost more money than a contract if I'm not totally wrong. Not that familiar with accidents nowadays

1/28/11

Nice post Eddie. Man, stories like that really scare the crap out of me. It actually wouldn't suck that much to be in his position, since he'll still be ridiculously wealthy even if he pays that much. Don't get me wrong, it definitely still sucks and on principle alone it really bothers me. All I'm saying, is that it scares me less to think I could be in his shoes, and more to think I could be pulling in $100K and have to give $30K-$40K to some chick.

I could be totally off-base here, but I think there are two things which don't help avoid this situation: First, a lot of guys don't care how accomplished, ambitious, and successful a woman is. I think that's a mistake. If you choose to marry someone with the same level of drive and determination you have, I think it'd be easier to stick it out for the long-haul. Don't marry the waitress who would love to retire young on your money, and go shopping and eating out with her friends daily. Instead, marry the doctor or lawyer, or some chick who'd rather use your money to start and run a business or a non-profit. Second, I think a lot of guys get blinded by how cute a girl is, and forget to size her up with regards to a lot of other qualities. I'm not saying looks aren't important. It's just that when you're so focused on looks, you're more likely to find girls who are one-dimensional. Not to mention, when you're being that shallow, you're probably more likely to find girls that are shallow; basically you strike a trade: looks for money. If you're willing to pass up a 10 for a sweet and loyal 7, then I think you have a better chance of making it work. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

1/28/11

As Kanye West put it "Now I ain't sayin' she a gold digger (When I'm in Need) But she ain't messin' with no broke fellas." Be careful out there, too many people are in it for the fortune and the fame.

1/28/11

I think the lesson here is moreso don't be an idiot than be scared of marrying a woman. Now, I've been proposed to awhile ago so I'm probably biased, but I also said when we were just friends rather than even dating that I wanted a pre-nup (for my sake at least, since I plan on being wildly successful like most young monkeys), so perhaps that influenced him positively. The goal is for either sex to find a partner who is not going to use them for their looks/money/connections, because there's pretty little hope of that ever lasting.

If you're an Ivy League IB'er who has just become an MD, and you get a chick from Conn U. who loves the "experience" of shopping with you, going out to clubs and showing off to other men while buying expensive bottles of bubbly, and has no plans for future income, don't marry her. It just seems like so many of these stories involve really horrible character judgments on the men's part. Though my mother or Britney Spears with Kevin Federline are examples when women make just as terrible judgment calls.

tl;dr Don't be a dumbass and marry someone who doesn't want to build something -with- you.

1/28/11

Don't kid yourself. The courts don't have anything to do with it. If you're worth anything over $500,000 liquid, the first thing your wife's divorce attorney is going to do is hire a forensic accountant to find all your ratholes.

See, my plan is to stick some of my pre-marriage assets into a spendthrift trust. Spendthrift trusts aren't considered an asset by the courts, and if you continue managing how the money is invested, it's a nice big nest egg that Mrs. Divorcee doesn't get to touch.

Not perfect, but no prenup conversation necessary. Besides, my religion is against talk about divorce before marriage.

1/28/11
1/28/11

Why would you not just have this person taken out?

1/28/11

^ Ive had that done and it's much harder/more expensive than you think.

1/28/11

Sorry Eddie,

But I like to think that if I ever find someone to marry, she will be as smart and kick ass as I am - even if this means that we don't have as much time to be together as I would have if I married a "at your disposal" wife.

Just fooling myself? Maybe. I am cynical, but I don't like extremes. Such as "never marry".

1/28/11

You can get married well into your late thirties and fourties, I just can't understand why 25 year olds get married and shoot their careers throughout the foot.

In reply to PIE
1/28/11
tyrets:

Why would you not just have this person taken out?

Paul.Allen:

^ Ive had that done and it's much harder/more expensive than you think.

Uhhh, are we talking about what I think we're talking about?!

That would be the most retarded thing you could do. Seriously, if you make $16M/month, why on earth would you "take someone out" to save yourself a few million a month? The chances of getting caught are high, and even if they weren't, why would you want to play around with the small chance of having to give up your sick lifestyle (and more importantly, your freedom). I'm going to assume tyrets (and of course Paul.Allen) was joking, in which case, haha.

1/28/11

If you're an Ivy League IB'er who has just become an MD, and you get a chick from Conn U. who loves the "experience" of shopping with you, going out to clubs and showing off to other men while buying expensive bottles of bubbly, and has no plans for future income, don't marry her. It just seems like so many of these stories involve really horrible character judgments on the men's part. Though my mother or Britney Spears with Kevin Federline are examples when women make just as terrible judgment calls.

I think the bottom line is that if you get married, in a healthy marriage, your career is less important than your family.

Wait until after the crush is over, and decide: would I be willing to give up my career to marry this woman? If the answer is still yes, then marriage is probably a healthy choice. Just bear in mind that it's hard to have a healthy family if you're working more than about 60 hours/week.

You can make some plans before you meet the person to protect yourself- like setting up a trust with some assets in it. (Also helps protect you from creditors and lawsuits.) But when you get married- you need to be making the decision that you want to spend the rest of your life with that person, and that you're willing to trade in your career to do that, if that's what it takes.

In reply to econ
1/28/11
econ:
tyrets:

Why would you not just have this person taken out?

Paul.Allen:

^ Ive had that done and it's much harder/more expensive than you think.

Uhhh, are we talking about what I think we're talking about?!

That would be the most retarded thing you could do. Seriously, if you make $16M/month, why on earth would you "take someone out" to save yourself a few million a month? The chances of getting caught are high, and even if they weren't, why would you want to play around with the small chance of having to give up your sick lifestyle (and more importantly, your freedom). I'm going to assume tyrets (and of course Paul.Allen) was joking, in which case, haha.

It was a rhetorical question, but don't get me wrong it would definitely cross my mind if I was that guy! And, of course, I didn't actually mean *he* do it!

Yes, econ, it was a joke, more or less. Oh, and guys in the old neighborhood on Mulberry used to do it for $10k. Thats not that expensive.....hahaha.

1/28/11

Most of the senior level guys that I directly worked for didn't marry some bimbo, they married respectable, educated women and still ended up divorced. Shit changes, people fall out of love. Best to position yourself so that you can detach yourself from her financially if stuff starts to go south, but you can't do that with a marriage contract in place.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
1/28/11
Edmundo Braverman:

Don't kid yourself. The courts don't have anything to do with it. If you're worth anything over $500,000 liquid, the first thing your wife's divorce attorney is going to do is hire a forensic accountant to find all your ratholes.

In child custody cases in the Middle East, the husband normally gets the kids- even if he is a US citizen and there is a U.S. COURT ORDER for him to hand them over. Heck, if the wife has custody, visits Jordan with her son, and Daddy shows up, she can lose custody, too.

If you move yourself and your assets to the UAE or Saudi Arabia, find a good lawyer, and get a divorce, can't you just give the Missus whatever is proscribed by law- like 15 goats, 30 shekels of silver, and some silverware- and tell the US legal system to try and stop you?

1/28/11

I wouldn't say never get married... but be patient, wait until you're well into your 30s if you have to.
When you'll know, you'll know (hopefully ;) )

1/28/11

Man, I must really be behind the times on this one. I still believe relationships should be based on mutual respect and understanding instead of trying to turn the other person into a copy of yourself (can run both ways). But then again, who am I to judge? I must be an ultraconservative misogynist.

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

1/28/11

Honestly, if you have that kind of wealth you need a pre nup. Also, if you can see this coming just trasfer money to an overseas account and leave the country. If you can take your kids and go to another country and interpool won't do anything I am sure you could do the same with divorce funds.

1/28/11

A bunch of really stand-up guys on this forum, I can see. If you didn't have a pre-nup signed and can see your wife's about to ditch you, leave her broke and destitute, to hell with kids, not like you owe them anything, right.

Whatever happened to morals or a sense of responsibility to your offspring? Seriously, some of your fkers disgust me. Shallow as a goddamn puddle.

Step 1: Dream the Dream || Step 2: Live the Dream || Step 3: Rinse, repeat.

1/28/11

Simply put:

If you don't want to give her half, don't marry her.

1/28/11

I can understand giving her part of your wealth, but half?? That's unfair.

1/28/11

...that being said, my last Valentine's Day was spent with my bros watching "Platoon." Still ended up being good times. Cheap, too.

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

1/28/11

Jackie - pretty much hit the nail on the head there!
(Love that someone tossed scheisse on my for my above comment... almost comical... get a job dude.)

Step 1: Dream the Dream || Step 2: Live the Dream || Step 3: Rinse, repeat.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Not perfect, but no prenup conversation necessary. Besides, my religion is against talk about divorce before marriage.

Haha... My religion is against birth control, but that never stopped me from protecting myself. Shouldn't stop you either.

patternfinder:

Of course, I would just buy in scales.

See my WSO Blog | my AMA

In reply to AVPGuerilla
1/28/11
AssociateGuerilla:

A bunch of really stand-up guys on this forum, I can see. If you didn't have a pre-nup signed and can see your wife's about to ditch you, leave her broke and destitute, to hell with kids, not like you owe them anything, right.

Whatever happened to morals or a sense of responsibility to your offspring? Seriously, some of your fkers disgust me. Shallow as a goddamn puddle.

Why would you want to hand over your hard-earned money to someone who's about to leave you ?

In reply to Jackiesinthesun
1/28/11
Jackiesinthesun:

Simply put:

If you don't want to give her half, don't marry her.

Wise words.

*********************************
"The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher." - Oscar Wilde

1/28/11

I would be upset, but finance (or any lucrative big business) isn't about being morally responsible or taking care of others. It's not surprising that the individuals who are drawn to finance support the underlying drivers and therefore often don't see the value in much else. If it can't be DCF'ed or F'ed and left, I don't think most guys care...

1/28/11

And let's face it. Out of the marriages that end in divorce because of infidelity, it's usually the man who cheats. So it seems fair that the woman gets to leave with enough money to live the rest of her life comfortably.

I do agree that Eddie's example above is insane. That woman should walk away with the millions she's already been awarded.

-MBP

1/28/11

What is the problem with giving her half? Seriously, who cares? Chances are, none of us will be billionaires, but most of us who are already established in our careers will be quite well off, and parting with some of that wealth should not be the end of the world for anyone. If god forbid my marriage ends in 10 years, I'll have to give a couple million dollars to my wife, and I would do it happily out of respect for the time we spent together (barring some extreme circumstances of course). Even if I have to give half (or even most) of my networth, I can still earn it back pretty easily, whereas my wife wouldn't be able to earn it back. I would want her to be able to live the rest of her life comfortably...

-MBP

In reply to manbearpig
1/28/11
manbearpig:

What is the problem with giving her half? Seriously, who cares? Chances are, none of will be billionaires, but most of us who are already established in our careers will be quite well off, and parting with some of that wealth should not be the end of the world for anyone. If god forbid my marriage ends in 10 years, I'll have to give a couple million dollars to my wife, and I would do it happily out of respect for the time we spent together (barring some extreme circumstances of course). Even if I have to give half (or even most) of my networth, I can still earn it back pretty easily, whereas my wife wouldn't be able to earn it back. I would want her to be able to live the rest of her life comfortably...

Its not about the money in every case, sometimes its about your principles.

In reply to manbearpig
1/28/11
manbearpig:

What is the problem with giving her half? Seriously, who cares? Chances are, none of us will be billionaires, but most of us who are already established in our careers will be quite well off, and parting with some of that wealth should not be the end of the world for anyone. If god forbid my marriage ends in 10 years, I'll have to give a couple million dollars to my wife, and I would do it happily out of respect for the time we spent together (barring some extreme circumstances of course). Even if I have to give half (or even most) of my networth, I can still earn it back pretty easily, whereas my wife wouldn't be able to earn it back. I would want her to be able to live the rest of her life comfortably...

Well, if there's no divorce, you never have to worry about it. That should really be the ideal. But since I probably haven't met Miss Gorgeous yet, I get to be rational and worry about my ability to make rational decisions when I'm in love.

If there is a divorce, is it fair for your wife to be able to demand half of everything you earned before you got married? I understand half of the money you earned during your marriage, but if you worked like crazy for 10-15 years, finally made it, and got married to somebody who left you after two, should she really be able to demand half of that money?

I really don't want to be the guy who gets married for his money. Hence, if I ever strike it rich before marriage, it's all going into a trust to help reduce some of that incentive.

In reply to AVPGuerilla
1/28/11
AssociateGuerilla:

A bunch of really stand-up guys on this forum, I can see. If you didn't have a pre-nup signed and can see your wife's about to ditch you, leave her broke and destitute, to hell with kids, not like you owe them anything, right.

Not advocating it, just saying that there's alternatives to the US legal process if you're really pissed. Which means you're probably taking the kids to the UAE with you and being their father there.

Of course, you'll never be able to leave the Middle East without getting arrested. But the original response was intended as more of a point that we shouldn't talk in absolutes.

My view is that if you say "Till death do us part," you should mean it, and you should be willing to stick out a marriage through good times and bad.

In reply to anaismalcolm
1/28/11
anaismalcolm:

I think the lesson here is moreso don't be an idiot than be scared of marrying a woman. Now, I've been proposed to awhile ago so I'm probably biased, but I also said when we were just friends rather than even dating that I wanted a pre-nup (for my sake at least, since I plan on being wildly successful like most young monkeys), so perhaps that influenced him positively. The goal is for either sex to find a partner who is not going to use them for their looks/money/connections, because there's pretty little hope of that ever lasting.

If you're an Ivy League IB'er who has just become an MD, and you get a chick from Conn U. who loves the "experience" of shopping with you, going out to clubs and showing off to other men while buying expensive bottles of bubbly, and has no plans for future income, don't marry her. It just seems like so many of these stories involve really horrible character judgments on the men's part. Though my mother or Britney Spears with Kevin Federline are examples when women make just as terrible judgment calls.

tl;dr Don't be a dumbass and marry someone who doesn't want to build something -with- you.

don't insult my state school women. more shit for you.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee

WSO is not your personal search function.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:
manbearpig:

What is the problem with giving her half? Seriously, who cares? Chances are, none of us will be billionaires, but most of us who are already established in our careers will be quite well off, and parting with some of that wealth should not be the end of the world for anyone. If god forbid my marriage ends in 10 years, I'll have to give a couple million dollars to my wife, and I would do it happily out of respect for the time we spent together (barring some extreme circumstances of course). Even if I have to give half (or even most) of my networth, I can still earn it back pretty easily, whereas my wife wouldn't be able to earn it back. I would want her to be able to live the rest of her life comfortably...

Well, if there's no divorce, you never have to worry about it. That should really be the ideal. But since I probably haven't met Miss Gorgeous yet, I get to be rational and worry about my ability to make rational decisions when I'm in love.

If there is a divorce, is it fair for your wife to be able to demand half of everything you earned before you got married? I understand half of the money you earned during your marriage, but if you worked like crazy for 10-15 years, finally made it, and got married to somebody who left you after two, should she really be able to demand half of that money?

I really don't want to be the guy who gets married for his money. Hence, if I ever strike it rich before marriage, it's all going into a trust to help reduce some of that incentive.

Yeah I totally get that. I guess I was thinking along the lines of my personal situation. We've been together for like 7 years. Well before either of us knew we would be pretty well off. And if we ever split up, I would have no issue with giving up half.

I do agree though, she shouldn't be entitled to half the money you had before you even met her...

-MBP

1/28/11

SAC - fair enough. I wouldn't want to give my ex half of my net worth - it's the kids I'm focused on. My pops bounced out when I was a kid, so this strikes a personal cord with me.

And to the person who keeps throwing sht at me - I know who you are, and you know who you are - toss away. I care less. Not going to get into some morality pissing contest with you... don't ask me to refer your resume again... it's quite weak.

Step 1: Dream the Dream || Step 2: Live the Dream || Step 3: Rinse, repeat.

1/28/11

These threads also scare the shit out of me. I'm now 30, happily single, traveling, running WSO (about to launch JDO) and just overall having a great time. BUT eventually I do want kids and I like the idea of marriage assuming I can find the right person.

...but I have to say it's not easy. Maybe it's because I've already had 3 long term relationships (1.5, 2.5 and 3.5yrs each) and now have more dating experience under my belt than when I was 22 (jaded?)- but to find the right person is looking harder every day.

I think we all have very high standards and to find someone that can challenge you intellectually, has the right priorities in life, will be a good mother, etc....and after ALL that, you still have to be attracted to her...it's like Super Woman. I mean, I know everyone has flaws (including myself - for example, I'm stubborn as a mule), but I just find this mix (intelligent, beautiful and grounded) to be extremely rare. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

Either way, I'm not too concerned (yet), but in a few years (say 34), I'd like to at least have started a relationship with my future wife so I can have some kids before I'm 40. My body is already falling apart at 30 so I can't imagine how old I'll feel at 40 (and yes, I have read the 4 hour body).

1/28/11

I don't know, I think pre nups should be mandatory. Not even for the money, but for te sobering effect being in a lawyers office brings about. Marriage is not about love, it is about commitment. This whole Disney version of marriage is what has ruined marriage. After 10 years it is about the bond you have with your wife, not about looks or love. People need to be much more pragmatic with things. Don't get married until you can have an adult conversation about what you are going into.

1/28/11
King Solomon:

Better to live in a desert
than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife.
-Proverbs 21:19

1/28/11

I've heard of cases where a pre-nup doesn't hold up in court. A very good attorney will be able to bring to light the circumstances, under which the girl signed. If a lawyer can prove she was under duress when she signed it, then it no longer holds up in court. However, statistically speaking you are much safer with a pre-nup than without one, but don't be mislead into believing you are 100% safe, just because she signed a pre-nup.

Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.

-Niccolo Machiavelli

1/28/11

Again, why a premarital spendthrift trust is pretty darned airtight. Stick your stash into there before you meet Miss Gorgeous.

1/28/11

Female here. Broadly speaking (with exceptions I'm sure) I wouldn't agree to a prenup. Women seek security in marriage, the prenup is that Get Away Free card that undermines it all.

1/28/11

Just a note about Valentine's Day: This is a TERRIBLE day to propose! Don't ever propose on the girl's birthday or a holiday. If you do so, the ring will be classified as a "gift" and you won't be able to get it back legally even if you break up right away. My girlfriend was actually the one who pointed this out to me and sometimes we even laugh at our guy friends who propose on holidays/birthdays.

CompBanker

1/28/11

I just have to tell you guys this story because it cracks me up every time I think about. I apologize in advance if I've told it before, but I don't think I have.

I was at a wedding in Southern California many years ago, and a few hours into it I happen to have a conversation with the mother of the bride. She's had a bit to drink and she's feeling chatty, so I talk to her for a little while. It comes up in the conversation that the parents of the groom gave the bride and groom their wedding present the night before at the rehearsal dinner, and it was a fully-paid off $500,000 house.

I was pretty stunned at the gift. Let's face it, that's a hell of a wedding gift. The only stipulation was that the couple had to cover the property taxes (around $1,500 a month if I remember correctly), but they got a house free and clear. The bride's mother was livid about it though. At first I thought it was because the gift outshone whatever she got them, but then the truth came out.

She started with, "That son of a bitch (referring to the groom's father) knew exactly what he was doing. By giving them the house last night, before they were married, it's not community property. Now if they get divorced, my daughter gets none of it." I remember thinking it was a pretty slick move on the groom's dad's part, and I remember chuckling at how focused the bride's mother was on their inevitable divorce.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Again, why a premarital spendthrift trust is pretty darned airtight. Stick your stash into there before you meet Miss Gorgeous.

Illini,

According to wikipedia (which is not the courts, but a good source nonetheless)

"Necessaries, child support and alimony

Some creditors may compel payment out of the trust - particularly those who supply the beneficiary with "necessaries" (usually food and shelter, but sometimes clothing and transportation, if these are not extravagant). Most jurisdictions also permit the invasion of spendthrift trust assets to satisfy awards of child support and alimony."

Sounds like if you wanna hide something from your ex-wife, better do it in the backyard with a shovel.

1/28/11

I want to chime and and say that as a single guy who does hope to get married and have a family one day, I understand both sides on this one. Obviously in an ideal world, you get married once and stay married "til death" but as we all know, shit happens. I've actually thought a good bit about this, and here's how I plan to structure it when the time comes.

1.) All assets of both parties earned before the marriage are off limits.
2.) If she works, just get out the tax returns and let her have every single after-tax penny she earned during the marriage.
3.) If she doesn't work (which is my hope), let's consider the considerable value that she brought to the marriage by raising my children and maintaining the home. I'll be extremely generous and say that those services are worth $175k/year, which is far above market value, but hey, she's my wife. I'll pay her our $175k for every year we were married in "back salary", free and clear.
4.) She can take all the jewelry, cars, clothes and other possessions that are "hers" that I bought for her.
5.) I keep the rest, since I earned it.

My goal here is to be generous to my wife and make sure she is fairly compensated in the event of a possible divorce, while also protecting my (hopefully) sizeable estate from the exact situation Eddie described above. Thoughts monkeys?

- Capt K -
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham

1/28/11

See, I can't deal with a prenup. It's already sowing the seeds of doubt in the marriage.

I want to have everything set up so that when I find Miss Gorgeous, I don't have to worry about her stealing the stuff I earned on my own before meeting her if we ever get divorced. Right now is the time to be coldly rational and come up with backup plans, not after you fall in love and start planning to live the rest of your lives together.

In reply to CaptK
1/28/11
CaptK:

My goal here is to be generous to my wife and make sure she is fairly compensated in the event of a possible divorce, while also protecting my (hopefully) sizeable estate from the exact situation Eddie described above. Thoughts monkeys?

From everything I've read on the case, this appears to have been Brandes's strategy as well. In the end, she just decided she wanted more. If there's a way to hedge against that, I certainly haven't discovered it.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
1/28/11
Edmundo Braverman:
CaptK:

My goal here is to be generous to my wife and make sure she is fairly compensated in the event of a possible divorce, while also protecting my (hopefully) sizeable estate from the exact situation Eddie described above. Thoughts monkeys?

From everything I've read on the case, this appears to have been Brandes's strategy as well. In the end, she just decided she wanted more. If there's a way to hedge against that, I certainly haven't discovered it.

Except poor old Brandes didn't make her sign the pre-nup. You'd better believe I will. And there's no reason for her to balk, since what I propose above is more than generous.

- Capt K -
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham

In reply to Ben Shalom Bernanke
1/28/11
Ben Shalom Bernanke:

Some creditors may compel payment out of the trust - particularly those who supply the beneficiary with "necessaries" (usually food and shelter, but sometimes clothing and transportation, if these are not extravagant). Most jurisdictions also permit the invasion of spendthrift trust assets to satisfy awards of child support and alimony."

Sounds like if you wanna hide something from your ex-wife, better do it in the backyard with a shovel.

True, but if another beneficiary's name is in the trust- like your brother- you can still screw her out of the money by having it paid out to him. And with another person involved in the trust and a separate trustee managing it, it's going to be incredibly hard for the court to go after even the distributions from it to me. Especially if it was established before the marriage.

The court can't touch my brother's trust money. It might be able to take the money paid to me from the trust, but not to my brother.

1/28/11

He was 43 when he married her and making 180k a year. That doesn't exactly strike me as a shooting star (especially in San Diego). I don't think her theory about her gentrifying him and social engineering him into success is that far out there. I've definitely seen it happen, and it was quite clear that without the right guidance the men wouldn't have become what they are.

More is good, all is better

1/28/11

This is something that one really has to take into account this day and age, especially considering that 33 percent of all marriages end in divorce now. So start making those prenumpts, and make them good, because lets face it, this world we live in just wants things newer prettier faster (and in certain cases) dumber. Nothing says screw you like taking 50% percent of your assets.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:
Ben Shalom Bernanke:

Some creditors may compel payment out of the trust - particularly those who supply the beneficiary with "necessaries" (usually food and shelter, but sometimes clothing and transportation, if these are not extravagant). Most jurisdictions also permit the invasion of spendthrift trust assets to satisfy awards of child support and alimony."

Sounds like if you wanna hide something from your ex-wife, better do it in the backyard with a shovel.

True, but if another beneficiary's name is in the trust- like your brother- you can still screw her out of the money by having it paid out to him. And with another person involved in the trust and a separate trustee managing it, it's going to be incredibly hard for the court to go after even the distributions from it to me. Especially if it was established before the marriage.

The court can't touch my brother's trust money. It might be able to take the money paid to me from the trust, but not to my brother.

So, if you had to chose between possibly having to split the trust with your wife, and possibly having your brother f you out of your entire trust fund, you would chose getting f -ed over by your brother?

More is good, all is better

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:

See, I can't deal with a prenup. It's already sowing the seeds of doubt in the marriage.

I want to have everything set up so that when I find Miss Gorgeous, I don't have to worry about her stealing the stuff I earned on my own before meeting her if we ever get divorced. Right now is the time to be coldly rational and come up with backup plans, not after you fall in love and start planning to live the rest of your lives together.

courts do not award your premarital possessions or things like gifts and inheritances.
They will only figure out how to share communal property - I.e. Property you acquired while married.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Argonaut
1/28/11
Argonaut:

So, if you had to chose between possibly having to split the trust with your wife, and possibly having your brother f you out of your entire trust fund, you would chose getting f -ed over by your brother?

Yup. At least he didn't divorce me and go after all of my money.

In reply to Argonaut
1/28/11
Argonaut:

courts do not award your premarital possessions or things like gifts and inheritances.
They will only figure out how to share communal property - I.e. Property you acquired while married.

Not if you're in a community property state. Have to be very, very careful not to commingle assets.

1/28/11

Capt K: but what about the opportunity costs incurred when taking are of your kids and home? Just paying her 'above market rate' of nanny/housekeeper is callous as it neglects to account for the opportunity costs to her own career. How can she go out looking for a job now at a comparable level to if she never got married?

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:
Argonaut:

So, if you had to chose between possibly having to split the trust with your wife, and possibly having your brother f you out of your entire trust fund, you would chose getting f -ed over by your brother?

Yup. At least he didn't divorce me and go after all of my money.

Your logic evades me.
Hopefully your brother didn't divorce you because he never married you, and not because he is so in love with you that divorce isn't an option

More is good, all is better

1/28/11

Your logic evades me.
Hopefully your brother didn't divorce you because he never married you, and not because he is so in love with you that divorce isn't an option

Well, it's too bad it evades you, because it's pretty simple.

If I am involved in an ugly divorce, I'd rather have my brother get my money than my wife get alimony.

1/28/11

What you bring into the marriage is yours. What's earned inside of the marriage is shared between you. She could easily argue that she helped build his empire, maybe not explicitly, but she could at least claim some influence.

Either way, what a rich bitch.

1/28/11

that's disgusting. i pity mr brandes

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:
Argonaut:

courts do not award your premarital possessions or things like gifts and inheritances.
They will only figure out how to share communal property - I.e. Property you acquired while married.

Not if you're in a community property state. Have to be very, very careful not to commingle assets.

I don't think you understand the concept of community property. Hopefully this definition will help you:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property?...

More is good, all is better

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Your logic evades me.
Hopefully your brother didn't divorce you because he never married you, and not because he is so in love with you that divorce isn't an option

Well, it's too bad it evades you, because it's pretty simple.

If I am involved in an ugly divorce, I'd rather have my brother get my money than my wife get alimony.

what I mean is - what's to stop your brother from taking everything, even before the divorce? If he wanted to f you over, he would be in a better position to do that than your wife

More is good, all is better

1/28/11

Yup. I've done a fair amount of research on this. Let me highlight the pertinent part for you:

Property that is owned by one spouse before the marriage is the separate property of that spouse, unless the property is "transmuted" into community property. The rules for this vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction...

For instance, where a spouse owns a business when marrying, it is clearly separate at that time. But if the business grows during the marriage, then what of the additional property acquired during marriage? Do they not result from labor of the spouses? Were some of the funds that were used to pay for the property community funds while a portion of the funds were separate property?

Bottom line, you want to maintain a separate account. Certain trusts offer even better protection because they generally can't be treated as assets by the courts if it's not certain that the beneficiary will receive any benefits.

In reply to Rice_seasoning
1/28/11
Rice_seasoning:

Capt K: but what about the opportunity costs incurred when taking are of your kids and home? Just paying her 'above market rate' of nanny/housekeeper is callous as it neglects to account for the opportunity costs to her own career. How can she go out looking for a job now at a comparable level to if she never got married?

Well that's the idea of paying her far above the going rate for a nanny. I'm attempting to compensate her for any career she might have had. There are very few careers she could have had that would have netted her $175k/year after taxes for the duration of our marriage. The annual rate is obviously negotiable depending on her career prospects, but the idea is just to try to put a value on that opportunity cost, rather than the arbitrary and quite high "half of everything".

- Capt K -
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham

In reply to Argonaut
1/28/11
Argonaut:

what I mean is - what's to stop your brother from taking everything, even before the divorce? If he wanted to f you over, he would be in a better position to do that than your wife

Well, that's up to my Dad. He's the trustee. Both he and my brother have to conspire together for them to screw me. And I could get a best friend in there as trustee that has to agree on any payouts, too, just to be sure the implicit understanding that I'll get my money back is in there.

So unless I do something really awful to piss everyone off, there's a good chance the money goes to me.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Yup. I've done a fair amount of research on this. Let me highlight the pertinent part for you:

Property that is owned by one spouse before the marriage is the separate property of that spouse, unless the property is "transmuted" into community property. The rules for this vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction...

For instance, where a spouse owns a business when marrying, it is clearly separate at that time. But if the business grows during the marriage, then what of the additional property acquired during marriage? Do they not result from labor of the spouses? Were some of the funds that were used to pay for the property community funds while a portion of the funds were separate property?

Bottom line, you want to maintain a separate account. Certain trusts offer even better protection because they generally can't be treated as assets by the courts if it's not certain that the beneficiary will receive any benefits.

you can avoid the transmutation by not using any community property for operating the separate property, or if you do - structure it as a loan to be repaid into the community property from the proceeds of the separate business.
If you are ethical to your family - i.e. Not trying to take funds out of community property and transfer them into your separate belongings, you should have no problem proving that it was and has remained a separate property in court, should it come to that.

More is good, all is better

1/28/11

But don't you guys want to marry your equal or better? Why marry someone you thought inferior? I think a 50-50 split is fair among equals. She/he might not bring earning power to te table but I'm sure there are ways of adding value

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:
Argonaut:

what I mean is - what's to stop your brother from taking everything, even before the divorce? If he wanted to f you over, he would be in a better position to do that than your wife

Well, that's up to my Dad. He's the trustee. Both he and my brother have to conspire together for them to screw me. And I could get a best friend in there as trustee that has to agree on any payouts, too, just to be sure the implicit understanding that I'll get my money back is in there.

So unless I do something really awful to piss everyone off, there's a good chance the money goes to me.

except that people don't take money just because they are pissed off, and if your friend's kid gets cancer, I'm sure he will feel perfectly justified to use his funds, that used to be yours, for making sure his sick child recovers. Even if it ruins his friendship with you. This is a situation if your friend is actually honest. If he is not, his justification threshold might be as low as "mama needs new shoes", and you'll be stuck paying for shit to make your friend's wife happy, while your friend gets all the associated benefits. Or better yet - his wife divorced him, and gets half your trust fund because your friend isnt able to meet alimony/child support. What sweet irony! Lol
An if you try to make the "understanding" with your friend explicit, you might have one of the two options: 1.he blackmails you for hiding assets, which is a serious offense, or 2. Your wife's lawyer find this asset, convinces the judge you attempted to cheat your wife and children out of what is due to them and get hit with punitive damages, essentially setting your distribution to 70(her)/30(you), rather than 50/50

More is good, all is better

In reply to Argonaut
1/28/11
Argonaut:

except that people don't take money just because they are pissed off, and if your friend's kid gets cancer, I'm sure he will feel perfectly justified to use his funds, that used to be yours, for making sure his sick child recovers.

Nope. By the rules set up in the trust, he can't take it out for himself. He can only decide whether the trust pays me or my brother money.

Even if it ruins his friendship with you. This is a situation if your friend is actually honest. If he is not, his justification threshold might be as low as "mama needs new shoes", and you'll be stuck paying for shit to make your friend's wife happy, while your friend gets all the associated benefits. Or better yet - his wife divorced him, and gets half your trust fund because your friend isnt able to meet alimony/child support. What sweet irony! Lol
An if you try to make the "understanding" with your friend explicit, you might have one of the two options: 1.he blackmails you for hiding assets, which is a serious offense, or 2. Your wife's lawyer find this asset, convinces the judge you attempted to cheat your wife and children out of what is due to them and get hit with punitive damages, essentially setting your distribution to 70(her)/30(you), rather than 50/50

Just wanted to make sure you understand the difference between a trustee and a beneficiary.

My brother and I are the beneficiaries; my Dad and my friend are the trustees. No money can be distributed to anybody but my brother and me, and only then, if both my Dad and my best friend agree.

So in order for me to lose that money, all three of them would have to conspire against me. That's a risk I'm willing to take.

This is a situation if your friend is actually honest. If he is not, his justification threshold might be as low as "mama needs new shoes", and you'll be stuck paying for shit to make your friend's wife happy, while your friend gets all the associated benefits. Or better yet - his wife divorced him, and gets half your trust fund because your friend isnt able to meet alimony/child support. What sweet irony! Lol

In which case, I could send him and his wife to jail for larceny. It would be the equivalent of you setting up a hedge fund, me giving you money, and instead of you investing it, taking it off to vegas with you.

1/28/11

Many trust funds had the the funds misappropriated by trustees - it's not that uncommon. In many of those cases the beneficiaries didn't even know something went on until it was too late.
Good luck finding your friend if he takes your money and leaves the US for a country that wouldn't extradite him.
Family friend's accountant took off to Mexico with 100k of his business's cash - no trace.
I doubt you would have a large enough trust for cops/Interpol to even bother.

More is good, all is better

1/28/11

Also, how old is your dad? He may not last long, essentially leaving only your brother and your friend to conspire. That's a lot more shaky situation for you

More is good, all is better

1/28/11

Well, yes, but if you simply give instructions to the account executive at Northern Trust or Fidelity not to disburse anything unless you've got two signatures- from your Dad and your friend- you're pretty darned safe. And if they don't follow that, there's a $20 Billion institution you've got recourse against.

Don't worry about it. Trusts have been done safely for centuries, and most of the kinks are worked out. If you've got two trustees, and give Northern Trust or Bank of New York custody of the assets, you're pretty darned safe.

1/28/11

If you can't trust your brother and or your boys you need to reevaluate shit.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to Argonaut
1/28/11
Argonaut:

Also, how old is your dad? He may not last long, essentially leaving only your brother and your friend to conspire. That's a lot more shaky situation for you

I would be allowed to appoint another trustee if he died. Perhaps my mom or an uncle or a cousin. I have a feeling though that if/when he actually does pass away (probably 40+ years), I'll be able to appoint a computer algorithm as trustee.

Don't worry about it. This has been done for centuries. There's a number of variables, but its failure rate is still EASILY less than 1/10th that of marriage. And it can always provide leverage in a custody or alimony battle.

1/28/11

More is good, all is better

1/28/11

Also, if you are trying to protect premarital cash money - it's largely unnecessary. The alimony/child support would apply if you try to say oops, I don't work have no income, can't pay shit.
And if you are trying to shelter community property in that manner - it would still be fair game in divorce

More is good, all is better

In reply to happypantsmcgee
1/28/11
happypantsmcgee:

If you can't trust your brother and or your boys you need to reevaluate shit.

Bingo.

1/28/11

Interesting divorce stats: if you attended college, your risk of divorce decreases by 13%, if you wait to marry until after 25, your risk decreases by 24%, if you have an annual income of over 50k, your risk of divorce decreases by 30%. So if you are in any position to even have assets to protect, your risk of divorce is only a third that of a general population.
If your parents are happily married, your risk of divorce decreases by 14%.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Ben Shalom Bernanke
1/28/11
Ben Shalom Bernanke:
happypantsmcgee:

If you can't trust your brother and or your boys you need to reevaluate shit.

Bingo.

What is there to reevaluate? People change. You change. Sometime you look back at your life and think "I never would have thought at 10, that this is how I would grow up", whether good or bad.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Rice_seasoning
1/28/11
Rice_seasoning:

But don't you guys want to marry your equal or better? Why marry someone you thought inferior? I think a 50-50 split is fair among equals. She/he might not bring earning power to te table but I'm sure there are ways of adding value

Exactly. You can't discount the value of a good partner.

In reply to CaptK
1/28/11
CaptK:
Rice_seasoning:

Capt K: but what about the opportunity costs incurred when taking are of your kids and home? Just paying her 'above market rate' of nanny/housekeeper is callous as it neglects to account for the opportunity costs to her own career. How can she go out looking for a job now at a comparable level to if she never got married?

Well that's the idea of paying her far above the going rate for a nanny. I'm attempting to compensate her for any career she might have had. There are very few careers she could have had that would have netted her $175k/year after taxes for the duration of our marriage. The annual rate is obviously negotiable depending on her career prospects, but the idea is just to try to put a value on that opportunity cost, rather than the arbitrary and quite high "half of everything".

A wife is not a glorified nanny. When/if you find someone you want to marry, you will appreciate this and I guarantee you you will not structure your prenup as such.

The whole point of a prenup is to reach an agreement where both parties have a "meeting of the minds" and agree to the contract. First find a girl you love, and then discuss what she wants and only then do the prenup. If I were a chick and you told me this, I would think "shit, he just wants like a glorified nanny or something, fuck that". Don't pay your wife for "time served" (at least so explicitly - that's weird).

In my opinion, the more money you have, the less you should care about having to give your spouse half (some of you feel pity for Mr. Brandes...like really?). I'm fine with giving half, I would have a prenup to make sure I'm not taken advantage of and to specify terms/duration of the alimony and protecting certain other things.

Marriage is a true partnership, think about what it's supposed to be. You're not going to have to give half unless the marriage lasts a decent while. People don't get "taken" after 5 or even 10 years of marriage. It's those 20+ year marriages where things can get really ugly.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

1/28/11

Just put it in the butt and be done with it.

1/28/11

I just want to take a moment to address the issue of "half". Giving up "half" your shit is what everyone talks about in a divorce, but I've yet to see any of my friends get away with only paying "half". In my two divorces, I gave up closer to 90% of total assets just to be done with it.

Half is a wet dream in a divorce. Brandes will tell you that. Ex-wives get way more than half.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
1/28/11
Edmundo Braverman:

I just want to take a moment to address the issue of "half". Giving up "half" your shit is what everyone talks about in a divorce, but I've yet to see any of my friends get away with only paying "half". In my two divorces, I gave up closer to 90% of total assets just to be done with it.

Half is a wet dream in a divorce. Brandes will tell you that. Ex-wives get way more than half.

Holy fuck dude...after your first divorce and losing 90%, why the heck didn't you get an airtight pre-nup? I can't imagine having to start from scratch twice...

-MBP

1/28/11

^^^ If you are giving up 90%, then I'd like to introduce you to my sister, she's hot and lives in NYC ;)

Lol, as far as I know half is what the courts usually award and what the statutes aim for. It is viewed as a partnership with each person owning 50%.

I highly doubt you gave up close to 90% "just to be done with it". In my opinion, your lack of success with marriage has made you ultra jaded against it. That's fine with me, but please don't lie/exaggerate. Please show me examples of instances when a husband said, this is everything I own (including alimony, i.e. future cash flow stream), so half is X, and I am willing to pay it and where the court thought that agreement was unfair. While I don't doubt that there may be instances where for some reason that was considered unfair, I'm confident you'll find that extremely rare.

As far as I read it, Brandes' wife is not really getting "half". She is getting a lot, but not half. You may think that's unfair, and that's ok, but he has not offered her half.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to manbearpig
1/28/11
manbearpig:
Edmundo Braverman:

I just want to take a moment to address the issue of "half". Giving up "half" your shit is what everyone talks about in a divorce, but I've yet to see any of my friends get away with only paying "half". In my two divorces, I gave up closer to 90% of total assets just to be done with it.

Half is a wet dream in a divorce. Brandes will tell you that. Ex-wives get way more than half.

Holy fuck dude...after your first divorce and losing 90%, why the heck didn't you get an airtight pre-nup? I can't imagine having to start from scratch twice...

Because he's obviously using hyperbole; he didn't lose 90%...

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

1/28/11

also,
it's just money guys. you can always get it back again. especially you smart folk who are going to be making it (and hence can make more of it). maybe in terms of inheritances, I can understand.

why taint/undermine the very idea of a marriage/life partnership? is money THAT important to you?

can't bring money to your grave.

and yes you can pass it on but your kids are 50% hers too.

1/28/11

You say Brandes makes 16 million a MONTH, so $192M a year. Let's assume he's made this for 5 years and no other income in his whole life. That's 960 million total. Half of that (taxes) is $480M. Let's take out half of that for good living, so $240M in assets is what's left. Half of that is $120M. He's given her $18.7M cash and seven properties (if each property is worth $14M, then she's getting half of the assets). Also, because they were married for so long, she gets alimony, half of which is $8M a MONTH, not the $500K she's getting.

Brandes has not given or offered her half as far as I can tell. I wouldn't be surprised if she's more responsible for his success than you give her credit for.

Frankly, I think it's laughable anyone (including Mr. Brandes) should care for Mr. Brandes' "plight". I would say to my ex-wife: "Look these are all the assets, the value of each, etc. I will give you half of everything and half of my future income if you agree to settle because I think we can both agree that "half" is fair. If you don't think that's fair I will fight you tooth and nail and win, on a matter of principle I will not be taken advantage of". I guarantee you she'd take it.

Then, I can go and take my $8M a month and buy yachts, ferraris, penthouses, date gorgeous women, etc. Doesn't sound horrible to me.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

1/28/11

I challenge whoever threw monkey shit at my earlier comments to a duel. With either dueling pistols or swords, take your pick.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

1/28/11

In my particular case, I paid so much up front so I wouldn't have to pay ongoing alimony. I offered a big cash (and real estate) settlement so I'd never have to deal with them again. Both of them eventually went BK, and I made everything back and then some. In the case of my first wife, she was pretty astute and found trading records that implied that I'd colored outside the lines on a few occasions, so I willingly paid her off. But I wasn't happy about it.

You know why divorce is so expensive? Because it's worth it.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
1/28/11
Edmundo Braverman:

I just want to take a moment to address the issue of "half". Giving up "half" your shit is what everyone talks about in a divorce, but I've yet to see any of my friends get away with only paying "half". In my two divorces, I gave up closer to 90% of total assets just to be done with it.

Half is a wet dream in a divorce. Brandes will tell you that. Ex-wives get way more than half.

Didn't you also mention that one of your first wives knew some dirt on you and you were especially accommodating to make sure she is quiet?
Also Brandes is worth 1.5 bln, his wife is only asking for a part of some $140 mil properties on top of the 80 or so mil she got. He is definitely not getting taken.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Rice_seasoning
1/28/11
Rice_seasoning:

also,
it's just money guys. you can always get it back again. especially you smart folk who are going to be making it (and hence can make more of it). maybe in terms of inheritances, I can understand.

why taint/undermine the very idea of a marriage/life partnership? is money THAT important to you?

can't bring money to your grave.

and yes you can pass it on but your kids are 50% hers too.

I agree. If I were Mr. Brandes I could give her 99% and still be very, very happy. Hell, I could give her 100% and still be happy. I wouldn't WANT to, because 50% is fair, but this is a really silly example to use as far as "omg look how she's screwing him over". She's not even getting half, who cares, this is a non-issue.

Just because she's a "librarian" doesn't make her contribution to the marriage less valuable. Don't underestimate how a happy marriage can help one to be successful. Also, little things can and do matter. Before they got married, he was doing well, but not astronomically so. Maybe his wife impressed others at cocktail parties; maybe she helped him dress better and improved his self-esteem and people skills. Maybe she motivated him to work harder and make more. Now, I know none of those things matter here; were life skills begin and end on an Excel spreadsheet, but that's not the case in the real world.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
1/28/11
Edmundo Braverman:

In my particular case, I paid so much up front so I wouldn't have to pay ongoing alimony. I offered a big cash (and real estate) settlement so I'd never have to deal with them again. Both of them eventually went BK, and I made everything back and then some. In the case of my first wife, she was pretty astute and found trading records that implied that I'd colored outside the lines on a few occasions, so I willingly paid her off. But I wasn't happy about it.

You know why divorce is so expensive? Because it's worth it.

Oh so there were valid reasons then. In one, you paid the PV of a future cash flow stream, and in the other let's just say she had a quite unusual bargaining chip and she used it to her advantage. My argument still stands. Examples of a husband truly offering "half" and having the court decline the proposed settlement is quite rare. If you are truly ok with paying half, you should be fine; and get a prenup that says that, anyone worth marrying will agree to a prenup that says she gets half.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

1/28/11

Alex,

I couldn't agree more. However, there are often extenuating circumstances in a divorce (my alleged trading inconsistencies, for example) that necessitate a greater than 50% settlement. This has nothing to do with court orders, this is all about making a situation go away. And it happens more often than most people realize. The world isn't peopled with insider traders, but there sure are a lot of philanderers out there. Hush money is a component of many divorce settlements.

1/28/11
alexpasch:

I challenge whoever threw monkey shit at my earlier comments to a duel. With either dueling pistols or swords, take your pick.

I'm with midas and he said he'd prefer a sock full of quarters

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
1/28/11
Edmundo Braverman:

Alex,

I couldn't agree more. However, there are often extenuating circumstances in a divorce (my alleged trading inconsistencies, for example) that necessitate a greater than 50% settlement. This has nothing to do with court orders, this is all about making a situation go away. And it happens more often than most people realize. The world isn't peopled with insider traders, but there sure are a lot of philanderers out there. Hush money is a component of many divorce settlements.

in that case, even if you did have a prenup she would still blackmail you to paying...
i might be wrong but it seems like the prenup question here isn't really applicable...

1/28/11

Would've never even occurred to me with her. I was an enlisted Marine when we got married, and worth less than nothing.

1/28/11

oh well.

anyway, i believe in the free market. so, to each his/her own. if a prenup is so important that you're willing to give up "the right one", then so be it. Similarly, if not agreeing to a prenup is so important that you're willing to give up "the right one", then so be it as well.

so for mr.brades... as an obviously smart man the fact that he didn't push for the prenup any harder indicates to me that this woman was worth more to him (hence had other , maybe less intangible, "value") than the importance of guarding his wealth (current and future). he could have walked away, unless she pointed a gun to his head and forced him to marry her.

In reply to TNA
1/28/11
ANT:

I don't know, I think pre nups should be mandatory. Not even for the money, but for te sobering effect being in a lawyers office brings about. Marriage is not about love, it is about commitment. This whole Disney version of marriage is what has ruined marriage. After 10 years it is about the bond you have with your wife, not about looks or love. People need to be much more pragmatic with things. Don't get married until you can have an adult conversation about what you are going into.

Well said. On a related note, as surprised as I am by how many people here have been married and divorced, it never ceases to amaze me how many young dudes here are convinced that marriage is a losing bargain because they're going to be pulling attractive women when they're in their 50s. Young guys everywhere sit around and say "I ain't never gettin hitched," but 20 years later, voila, fierce advocates of the single life are few and far between. Think about the majority of wealthy older men you know. How many of them have never been married?

Yeah, you can get fleeced financially if you're not careful, but if your wife-to-be refuses to sign a prenup , then it's pretty clear what she hopes to get out of the relationship and you should get out of there. If you have a prenup, I'm just not sure how it's a losing bargain.

And isn't taking marriage advice from someone who's been divorced like taking academic advice from someone in the bottom half of the class? There are plenty of happily married people out there, but for some reason people seize on the dramatic disaster stories and listen exclusively to the bitter divorcees.

One of those lights, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over.

1/28/11

just don't ever get married. EVER. worst thing you can do to yourself.

In reply to happypantsmcgee
1/28/11
happypantsmcgee:

If you can't trust your brother and or your boys you need to reevaluate shit.

Truer words have never been spoken on WSO. SB for you.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
1/28/11
Edmundo Braverman:

In my particular case, I paid so much up front so I wouldn't have to pay ongoing alimony. I offered a big cash (and real estate) settlement so I'd never have to deal with them again. Both of them eventually went BK, and I made everything back and then some.

Talk about poetic justice...

1/28/11

The reproductive/dating/marriage market is like any other. Unhindered, it tends to work itself out naturally--a male 8 (tall, reasonably attractive, successful) will pair with a female 8 (physically attractive, young, chaste, feminine) and the couple will be content. However, with the introduction of market inefficiencies such as heavily female-skewed divorce, child support and alimony legislation, the marriage contract becomes a categorically worse deal for males. Arbitrarily assigning a value of -2 to marriage (for males) in this example, a male 8 will now have to wed a female 10 in order to break even on the deal (10-2=8). However, given this market inefficiency, the value discrepancy between the male and the female will skew the dynamic of the relationship, assigning an uneven amount of power to the female, who in a free market would have been able to bag a male 10. Over time, the male becomes increasingly beta-fied, and the female increasingly jaded about her relatively subpar husband, despite her rapidly declining age-dependent intrinsic value. The female falls "out of love" (surprise!) and divorces the poor guy.

1/28/11

Roger Jenkins, ex-head of BarCap's Principal Investment and Private Equity arm also just announced his divorce.

To quote from the artical: "He once said of his wife: 'I wouldn't be where I am today without her. I can do anything now. I surrender to her better judgment on people and business' "

It goes on to say, "It was, apparently, she who charmed the Qatari royal family into parting with billions to take a stake in Barclays at a crucial moment during the global banking crisis"

Wonder how he feels now.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351617/...Barclays-open-claim-half-fortune.html

Edit: For those not from the UK, the Daily Mail is regarded as a very sensationlist tabloid, which doesn't aim to be intellectual. Interestingly, they've put this article in the 'Female' section, and seem to pe painting a rather positive image of the woman....perhaps in order to encourage more women to try and strike rich?

1/28/11
Rice_seasoning:

Female here. Broadly speaking (with exceptions I'm sure) I wouldn't agree to a prenup. Women seek security in marriage, the prenup is that Get Away Free card that undermines it all.

Along the same lines, the marriage certificate is the woman's Get Out Of Jail Free card. Security is a zero sum game; one party only feels secure when there is an imbalance of power in their favor that prevents the other party from acting against their interests. In the case of marriage, a man would be powerless to do anything if his wife suddenly turned into a huge bitch, for fear of losing half his money. So yeah, women seek security in marriage, but is it fair that the man has to give it up?

In reply to Tunnel
1/28/11
Tunnel:

The reproductive/dating/marriage market is like any other. Unhindered, it tends to work itself out naturally--a male 8 (tall, reasonably attractive, successful) will pair with a female 8 (physically attractive, young, chaste, feminine) and the couple will be content. However, with the introduction of market inefficiencies such as heavily female-skewed divorce, child support and alimony legislation, the marriage contract becomes a categorically worse deal for males. Arbitrarily assigning a value of -2 to marriage (for males) in this example, a male 8 will now have to wed a female 10 in order to break even on the deal (10-2=8). However, given this market inefficiency, the value discrepancy between the male and the female will skew the dynamic of the relationship, assigning an uneven amount of power to the female, who in a free market would have been able to bag a male 10. Over time, the male becomes increasingly beta-fied, and the female increasingly jaded about her relatively subpar husband, despite her rapidly declining age-dependent intrinsic value. The female falls "out of love" (surprise!) and divorces the poor guy.

See, that's the thing - when a male 8 marries a female 8, their risk of divorce is a fraction of what it is for let's say a set of 6s, and "market inefficiencies" do not have much influence.
BTW, what do you think would be a more effective solution for the market?

More is good, all is better

1/29/11

I am a newbie but I'd like to give my take on this.

As a young girl, I grew up with successful sisters, successful mothers, wonderful brothers, but no father figures.
Being surrounded by proud and amazing women taught me that I did not need a man in my life to succeed in life. Many female goldiggers live like parasites and strive on their ex-husbands' fortunes , they disgust me and are a shame to my specie.

With that being said, I would only try to take away what an ex husband has, only, only, if he was a jerk to me, cheated on me, and dumped me without mercy like Kelsey Grammer did to his soon to be ex-wife, or like Rudy Giuliani dumped Donna Hanover. I would put my lawyers at his gate, for the sheer pleasure of destroying and bankrupting him. But again, that would not be the real ME, because, as a female who seeks success and independence, my pride would keep me from begging for the a.hole's money.

I have always say that if I make millions before I get married (if I will get married) I will put 2/4 of my fortune under my mother's name, 1/4 in a trust for my younger siblings, and I will take the rest with me as I say "I do."It will be perfectly fine with me if he is wealthy also and wants a pre-nup. It's a tough world, and I must play by the wolves' rules. No men will ever get to leave my marriage with what I earned while I was single.

Some of you young men should not disregard IlliniProgrammer and AVPGuerilla 's comments. They make some wise points.

"You traitress! You dare to have
secrets from me! I am your Queen!
You ask my permission before you
rut - before you marry - before
you breed! My bitches wear my
collars!"

In reply to karypto
1/29/11
karypto:

You can get married well into your late thirties and fourties, I just can't understand why 25 year olds get married and shoot their careers throughout the foot.

You have to realize that sometimes you meet the right person and decide I'd rather not put this on hold and see if this potential partner is going to wait around for a decade.

Let's make better mistakes tomorrow

1/29/11

Not to be a cynic here Eliz, because i've read what you wrote and am heartened that people like you still exist. However; there is a well known link between fathers and daughters, and the affects that that relationship has on the daughters future relationships with men. (Crudely speaking, the ones with daddy issues cruise through boyfriends like no tomorrow and put out a lot).

There's a difference between success and happiness, and sometimes it's nice to depend on people. A lot of people like to feel needed, and if you're a self sufficient machine, that takes away that satisfaction that a lot of men get from a relationship. You may want to remember that, and feign vulnerability in some areas.

Remember to factor in the broody factor when you hit the 30-40 bit and everyone you know has a family. That's when doing everything for yourself is hard.

Finally, regarding the putting your money away part. Lots and lots of megawealthy people lose half of their stuff to a court. If you can lay your hands on that money, so can the courts. I'm pretty sure the super rich have some good legal and accounting advice but that's not helped them out.

Personally, i'll never let my partner know how much I earn. Not because of some untrusting bs, but because if i make millions and I buy her a diamond, why isn't it a bigger diamond. I wouldn't lie if i was asked a direct question.

However as my dad told me, If you need to ask for a Prenup, you're marrying the wrong person.

Anyone ever considered getting insurance against a divorce?

P.S. You are always the real you. Saying the real you wouldn't be the one taking his money while taking it is nonsensical.

P.P.S.S. Being old, single and male is fun with money. Old single and female is pretty **** even with money, have a look at the widows of the world.

In reply to Argonaut
1/29/11
Argonaut:
Tunnel:

The reproductive/dating/marriage market is like any other. Unhindered, it tends to work itself out naturally--a male 8 (tall, reasonably attractive, successful) will pair with a female 8 (physically attractive, young, chaste, feminine) and the couple will be content. However, with the introduction of market inefficiencies such as heavily female-skewed divorce, child support and alimony legislation, the marriage contract becomes a categorically worse deal for males. Arbitrarily assigning a value of -2 to marriage (for males) in this example, a male 8 will now have to wed a female 10 in order to break even on the deal (10-2=8). However, given this market inefficiency, the value discrepancy between the male and the female will skew the dynamic of the relationship, assigning an uneven amount of power to the female, who in a free market would have been able to bag a male 10. Over time, the male becomes increasingly beta-fied, and the female increasingly jaded about her relatively subpar husband, despite her rapidly declining age-dependent intrinsic value. The female falls "out of love" (surprise!) and divorces the poor guy.

See, that's the thing - when a male 8 marries a female 8, their risk of divorce is a fraction of what it is for let's say a set of 6s, and "market inefficiencies" do not have much influence.
BTW, what do you think would be a more effective solution for the market?

There is no normative answer for what is "fair" to either party. If the social architect's goal is a nanny state full of single mothers, AWOL dads, and psychologically damaged children, then full steam ahead. However, if the goal is a USA full of functional, self-sufficient nuclear families, the legislation must provide a greater incentive for males to marry, and a lesser incentive for females to initiate divorce.

1. Abolish No-Fault divorce
2. Mandatory paternity testing
3. No alimony if the ex-wife remarries
4. More equitable child-support and child custody legislation

For starters.

1/29/11

^^ I think no.3 is already in place. Alimony payments cease if the ex-wife remarries.

In reply to SAC
1/29/11

^^ I think no.3 is already in place. Alimony payments cease if the ex-wife remarries.

For the most part, you're correct. But I actually have a friend whose court order reads that he has to pay her until she dies. True story. It was a fucked up deal, and there were a bunch of kids involved, but that's where he's at. He's been remarried almost 20 years now, she never remarried because she never wanted the divorce in the first place. Talk about a bitter broad whose only pleasure in life is inflicting misery on a guy who left her over 20 years ago.

1/29/11

I'm surprised a female hasn't responded.

In reply to Tunnel
1/29/11
Tunnel:
Argonaut:

See, that's the thing - when a male 8 marries a female 8, their risk of divorce is a fraction of what it is for let's say a set of 6s, and "market inefficiencies" do not have much influence.
BTW, what do you think would be a more effective solution for the market?

There is no normative answer for what is "fair" to either party. If the social architect's goal is a nanny state full of single mothers, AWOL dads, and psychologically damaged children, then full steam ahead. However, if the goal is a USA full of functional, self-sufficient nuclear families, the legislation must provide a greater incentive for males to marry, and a lesser incentive for females to initiate divorce.

1. Abolish No-Fault divorce
2. Mandatory paternity testing
3. No alimony if the ex-wife remarries
4. More equitable child-support and child custody legislation

For starters.

#3 - you can decrease (or remove) the alimony if the ex gets a raise in income, marries or even starts cohabitating with someone.
#4 - what is in your opinion is more equitable? While I know *some* men who fought for children in divorce, got custody, and are successfully raising said children without the help of their ex- spouse, many more men couldn't imagine being anything more than the weekend dad.
#2 - what would that accomplish? would it mean that if children turn out to be not biologically related to the man who changed their diapers, took them to their soccer games, and otherwise was there to raise them , the man wouldn't get any rights as a parent in divorce?
#1- I think many wealthy men would rather prefer that their wives file a no-fault divorce rather than air dirty laundry in the court records.
Also, you are really tore up about women initiating divorce, but in the case of the referenced article the man did, most likely in order to trade her in for a newer model. Would you say in a case like that a woman should bite the bullet and proudly walk away with nothing, while her ex-husband marries a 20 year old stripper and gives said stripper the things the wife was there along the way to earn?
And what is your approach for divorces on grounds of infidelity and domestic violence?
Your view of life seems to be rather simplistic.

More is good, all is better

1/29/11

Fellas,

Allow me to interject a radical idea: find a girl with a trust fund or a rich daddy & let them worry about the prenup.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense!!!

__________________________
Attempting to be the chess player, not the chess piece @ Steadfast Finances

In reply to Matt_SF
1/29/11
Matt_SF:

Fellas,

Allow me to interject a radical idea: find a girl with a trust fund or a rich daddy & let them worry about the prenup.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense!!!

Light years ahead of you man....done and done.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
1/30/11
Edmundo Braverman:

^^ I think no.3 is already in place. Alimony payments cease if the ex-wife remarries.

For the most part, you're correct. But I actually have a friend whose court order reads that he has to pay her until she dies. True story. It was a fucked up deal, and there were a bunch of kids involved, but that's where he's at. He's been remarried almost 20 years now, she never remarried because she never wanted the divorce in the first place. Talk about a bitter broad whose only pleasure in life is inflicting misery on a guy who left her over 20 years ago.

Perhaps she is Catholic. In any case, maybe she deserves as much respect/understanding for wanting to stick it out as she deserves contempt for (probably) inadvertently causing her former husband misery. Maybe I am very naive for having made it to 25, but I still haven't realized what's so awful about the family values of The Parent Trap. Marriage is supposed to be till death do us part- especially if there's kids in the equation. Maybe Mom wanted to provide some stability for them.

Eddie might be a little jaded. I have 12 blood-related aunts and uncles and there have only been two divorces. And neither have been particularly ugly. My parents are happily married after 35 years of being together (they met on the Greyhound Bus), though Wisconsin and Illinois are pretty high marriage rate states for being near the very bottom in divorce rates. Midwestern culture of thinking things through and sticking things out, I guess.

My rule is that you need to go into relationships and marriages with all the commitment in the world, but you need to make a few preparations in the event you wind up in the worst-case situation. Once you meet your soul mate, it's too late.

If you have some money saved up or come from a wealthy family, and you don't believe in prenups or talk of divorce before the wedding, it probably doesn't hurt to sit down with a marriage lawyer now and see if there's any advanced planning you can do.

1/31/11

Is it possible to just have a "wedding" and get "married" but never actually file the papers? Some gay couples just pay lawyers to get last names changed, so couldn't a straight couple? Since we're talking about potential wives that don't know shit about money or law, this doesn't seem too difficult.

Plus, if you go this route, I'm sure your friends would be pretty psyched to hear that Carrot Top is the minister.

In reply to GorillaJuicehead
1/31/11
GorillaJuicehead:

Is it possible to just have a "wedding" and get "married" but never actually file the papers? Some gay couples just pay lawyers to get last names changed, so couldn't a straight couple? Since we're talking about potential wives that don't know shit about money or law, this doesn't seem too difficult.

Plus, if you go this route, I'm sure your friends would be pretty psyched to hear that Carrot Top is the minister.

I think there's a provision called common-law marriage or implicit marriage that can get you in trouble come breakup time.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
1/31/11
IlliniProgrammer:
GorillaJuicehead:

Is it possible to just have a "wedding" and get "married" but never actually file the papers? Some gay couples just pay lawyers to get last names changed, so couldn't a straight couple? Since we're talking about potential wives that don't know shit about money or law, this doesn't seem too difficult.

Plus, if you go this route, I'm sure your friends would be pretty psyched to hear that Carrot Top is the minister.

I think there's a provision called common-law marriage or implicit marriage that can get you in trouble come breakup time.

Good call. From wikipedia it seems like you might be in the clear if you're in CA/IL/NY/NJ and avoid visiting the 11 states that would recognize it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_i...

In reply to TNA
1/31/11
ANT:

Just put it in the butt and be done with it.

Do i need to point out more??? !!!!

1/31/11

Looks like Ant's gf found this thread... XD

More is good, all is better

1/31/11

I am not ANT's gf...!!!

In reply to DABA_1985
1/31/11
DABA_1985:

I am not ANT's gf...!!!

Admitting that you have a problem is the first step in recovery

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to DABA_1985
1/31/11
DABA_1985:

I am not ANT's gf...!!!

You mean not anymore?
Breaking up with him over something he said on the board is kinda harsh, don't you think?
Although your frustration is definitely understandable. Would you like to talk about it? Present your side of the story, so to say.

More is good, all is better

1/31/11

DABA wishes a real man like me would PIITB. . .

In reply to TNA
1/31/11

^Again you mean?

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to TNA
1/31/11
ANT:

DABA wishes a real man like me would PIITB. . .

BLLLLAAAHHH!!!!

In reply to TNA
1/31/11
ANT:

DABA wishes a real man like me would PIITB. . .

As in she's been begging you to let her use a strap-on on you, or she's been begging you to put it in her butt?

More is good, all is better

1/31/11

I think you are lying. Do you have pictures of you with this "your own man" ?

More is good, all is better

1/31/11

I bet ANT would disagree too that i am his gf. Please do the honors ANT before this threat gets you in trouble.

1/31/11

See, if you weren't his gf, you wouldn't be bossy like that. ANT would have to be pretty p-whipped to comply with your ultimatum.

More is good, all is better

1/31/11

I am over this thread. I frankly don't give a shit. You guys have fun lol

2/1/11

ANT, don't be sad - she will cool off and you guys will make up.

More is good, all is better

2/1/11

What a fantastic thread. So good to see so much great input here.

Anais: good post, I would give you an SB but my WSO's got no formatting.
AVPGuerilla: great post, good luck to you Sir.
Patrick: You're living roughly my life plan right night. I aim to long wife short life around 35. Only regret being that I won't be able to experience kids when I'm 20-35 because I'll be too busy getting hardcore career-ed.

CaptK: Sounds like a great plan. I hope I have the confidence to ballpark that amount of 'de facto income' to my future wife with no qualms.

Alex: I hope to have your confidence in my future to take such a strong view on marriage. Sounds great too. Not taking any sides.

Who is throwing monkey crap at the upstanding women in the room? I can't see anything wrong with what they've said.

Ryubanker don't you read.

Lol happy. Where did you find your rich girlfriend.

FYI If this is any help, a Commonwealth lawyer advised me that:

1) pre-nups are no use if you go to a not-so-good lawyer (many loopholes possible and if there are "significant changes" after that nullify the terms in it). So go see a good attorney with experience drafting for MDs in your industry... I think most of us here would have done that anyway... but kudos Ed for putting it on the radar for the overly romantic.
2) Same lawyer also said that Commonwealth countries tend to go 50/50 and work it from there if that helps your arguments on parallel principles...

In reply to Rice_seasoning
2/1/11
Rice_seasoning:

Female here. Broadly speaking (with exceptions I'm sure) I wouldn't agree to a prenup. Women seek security in marriage, the prenup is that Get Away Free card that undermines it all.

women get them too.......

Get busy living

In reply to UFOinsider
2/2/11
UFOinsider:
Rice_seasoning:

Female here. Broadly speaking (with exceptions I'm sure) I wouldn't agree to a prenup. Women seek security in marriage, the prenup is that Get Away Free card that undermines it all.

women get them too.......

I read that Jessica Simpson is making ex-NFL QB Eric Johnson sign a prenup. Supposedly her business of shoes, purses and other chick things is now a billion dollar business.

In reply to Ben Shalom Bernanke
2/2/11
Ben Shalom Bernanke:
UFOinsider:
Rice_seasoning:

Female here. Broadly speaking (with exceptions I'm sure) I wouldn't agree to a prenup. Women seek security in marriage, the prenup is that Get Away Free card that undermines it all.

women get them too.......

I read that Jessica Simpson is making ex-NFL QB Eric Johnson sign a prenup. Supposedly her business of shoes, purses and other chick things is now a billion dollar business.

Good call, I'll keep this in mind.

Get busy living

In reply to AVPGuerilla
10/27/12
AVPGuerilla:

Eddie, I have to say, most of your posts are spot on - but I'm really disappointed to see you advise these young monkeys not to get married for simple concern of money. There is a lot, lot more to life than making a sht ton of money and hoarding it away. I myself am happily married, under 30 ys old, own a house in westchester and have a 1yr old kid at home. I'd give my career up in a second for my family - if keeping my family meant cleaning toilets at yankees stadium, I'd do it without question.

Did I ask my wife to sign a pre-nup? No.
Do I hope my marriage works out? Of course.
Will it suck if it ends 20 years down the line, and I lose 50% of my life's work? Absolutely.
But you pick up the pieces and move on.

We're all risk takers. Marriage is a calculated risk. Find the right girl, and make her yours.

I'd offer this advice to all young monkeys out there - if you find a girl you genuinely love, if she loves you, if neither of you are the cheatin' type - and if you've lived together for a few years without problems - marry her. Just know she'll go downhill after 35. It happens.

Guys, there is so, so much more to life than making 7 figures or being a BSD. You can make millions upon millions, at the end of the day the only thing you leave behind on this earth are your children - that's the impact you'll have on the world. Deals fade into history, nobody will remember them in 50 years - but your kids - keeping your family name alive - that's impactful.

If the single lifestlye is your thing, great. Some guys are cool living alone their whole lives and dying rich and alone. Good for you. It's just not my thing.

This would be touching if you were a Disney princess. Just because you don't get married doesn't mean you live and die alone, idiot.

You lose 50% to her, and you lose a lot of what's left in court fees and getting a new place to live. After, you're burdened with crippling ongoing payments which mean you can't take a risk with interesting new opportunities. The wife usually gets the kids, so you're alone anyway. You've lost most of your net worth after working like a dog, and you're obligated to work hard and live poor afterwards. It's no wonder why suicide rates for men triple after a divorce.

The chances are no better than flipping a coin, and don't think you're immune- I've seen it go worst in cases with two perfectly normal people. If somebody came up to you today and told you could co-habitate and be fine, or you could flip a coin and have equal odds of getting your life destroyed, which would you pick?

10/27/12

Well Eddie, more than a year after this original post, I'm going to assume that your attitudes haven't changed? Wonder where these characters are now...

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

10/10/15

To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • LinkeIn
  • Twitter
Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
10/11/15
In reply to WallStreetOasis.com
10/12/15

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

10/12/15
In reply to realjackryan
10/12/15

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to happypantsmcgee
10/13/15
In reply to In The Flesh
  • Anonymous Monkey
  •  10/13/15
In reply to Anonymous Monkey
10/15/15

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling