The Divorce Fund: Speculating on Your Misery
I have spoken candidly in the past and will gladly do so again, about my misadventures in the world of marriage. It's a world many foolish men enter, but few ever leave financially unscathed. Today, we look at yet another nail in the coffin of this once noble and righteous institution.
One year ago, Stacey Napp founded Balance Point. Not surprisingly, with money from her own divorce settlement. Balance Point is a divorce investment fund. It essentially ponies up its legal services for free (under the guise of a financial investment) and takes a percentage of the winnings, pardon... settlement .
Not shockingly, Ms. Napp's a career long finance professional with a Juris Doctor in tow. I suggest giving her a good thought the next time you're wondering why Wall Street is so fervently demonized in the media and why the word Bankster has become part of our modern lexicon.
It ain't all about the Bulge Brackets... it's about the idea that finance professionals are soulless, unscrupulous vultures willing to destroy people's lives for an extra penny on the dollar. That having been said, here's Ms. Napp's take on her noble project:
Everybody knows somebody where at the end of the day, the divorce was not equitable. We want to help those people, the underdog, to make sure they get their fair share. It furthers the concept of putting both spouses on an equal playing field.
Yeah, Stace...every man I know who's ever gotten a divorce has gotten robbed, raped and beaten by thugs like you. What equal playing field are you talking about, exactly?
The one where saying I do instantly entitles you to my blood, sweat and years?
The one where I can lose half just by looking at the nanny sideways and the one where you can hop from pool boy to gardner to mailman and still get cashed out proper?
Word to the Wise...
You can think of me what you want. Most of you guys are still at the age where you think the rules don't apply to you. Just remember that you've been warned. Marriage in the United States is a lose-lose proposition for the overwhelming majority of men.
Maybe you get to escape a fate of pocket siphoning, but chances are that you will be paying for your wife every step of the way. The bill will just come due after the best years of your life are behind you and she's well past her expiration date.
Modern day marriage is just another way of taxing hard working, successful and ambitious men. If you are really intent on getting married, do it offshore, somewhere where the law is not designed to steal from you as it is here.
Or better yet, start your own Divorce Fund or become a liquidity provider for Ms. Napp's. I guess this is your best method of hedging risk in a world gone completely batshit.
Mod Note (Andy): Throwback Thursday, this originally went up Dec 2010
Well done sir, well done.
I don't know what the practical limitations are but perhaps insurance companies could start a new line a products devoted to divorce insurance. Structure the product like a CDS. The buyer pays a premium every month and in the event of the a divorce there is a lump sum payout, otherwise, the buyer keeps paying the premium. It doesn't fix the inherent problems in the instituition of marriage but it could mitigate the financial impact on the party getting screwed
This is brilliant.
I worked in insurance underwriting for a few months. This would never work, as good as it sounds.
Adverse selection. People who opt for these policies would be already more predisposed to divorce, hence the need for a policy in the first place.
Ways around it could be mandatory insurance for all newly weds, similar to how car insurance is required for everyone (barring New Hampshire). Even then, it'd be difficult to set premium levels.
Interesting concept though.
if only there was a way to hide a large portion of your income, stash it away somewhere just in case things head south, now that would be a very successful business wouldn't it?
A Cayman's account and an unintelligent wife solves that.
Not a bank in the Caymans, my friend... way too obvious. A Trust in the Cook Islands is where it's at.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/business/international/paradise-of-un…
I have never heard of offshore marriages, but I am intrigued. Off the top of your head, do you know where the best place to do this is? Obviously it has to seem romantic or she won't go for it I feel.
Waouh I am shocked. You are disgusting
between you and Eddie feeding me this shit every week I think I will likely never get married...or if I do I will be shitting my pants all the way down the aisle.
Midas, you were married?
Yes...to your whole post.
+1 to that, Patrick. Between Eddie/Midas/everyone else I speak with.... I think I'd rather swallow a bag of needles than take the plunge. Nice work Midas - you have kept me a believer.
Aren't you though, now? Thought you have toddler.
ha, yes, this comment was from 2010 :-) ...and baby #2 coming in 2 weeks. oh crap.
There's no such thing as an offshore marriage. Even if you got married outside the country, assuming you live in the United States, the US will have jurisdiction over your marriage and the state's (divorce law goes by state) divorce laws will apply. Sometimes couples battle over what state to file the divorce proceedings in, since again, the laws vary from state to state, but that can only be done if there is marital property in both states, or a prenup says what state any divorce proceedings would occur in, etc.
You can't just fly to the Cayman Islands, get married, and then fly back and pretend like you're somehow under Cayman Islands' marriage laws (I have no idea where the lax marriage laws are, just saying).
Incorrect
Example?
I think there is an insurance you can purchase for divorce. Like you pay certain amount money every month and if you get divorce, they will cover the legal fees. But the insurance won't cover if you get divorce in the first 2 years. I guess you really have to plan ahead if you want to use that. lol
For some reason my girlfriend gets mad at me every time I send her articles like these.
at least now I know who the death threat was from.
If I had any credits left, you sir, would be awarded one.
Sure, but how does your wife feel about all of that?
What if a woman cuts her career short to raise the kids? Is she not entitled to half then? Women that go back into the workforce after child-rearing are usually generally limited and lose up to 70% of their pay that they would have had they not quit.
I'm genuinely curious to hear this argument, and suspect that couples in the higher tax brackets have very different experiences than people in the lower brackets.
hmmmm, that is a good point. Personally I will NEVER EVER cut my career for kids. I believe having-it-all is possible.
So naive. (1) Never say never. (2) Having-it-all is not possible.
That's why they invented boarding school...
no
lost cause
The swing in divorce laws happened because 50 years ago women got absolutely screwed over. Its not enough apparently that we have to pay for the retirement of these people who have nothing better to do then vote and get riled up about their factory job that paid the equivalent of $50 an hour to tighten lug nuts but the legal backlash from these times are unreal. I for one am sick and tired of paying (with money and blood) for the mistakes of our father's (grandfather's for some of you younger cats).
I'm having to move to another place soon just so my girlfriend can't argue common law if we break up. Say what you want about women, but in the real poker game of life, lawyers are the fucking rake. Charging by the quarter hour and advocating more litigation no matter the impact makes makes the thievery I engage in for a living look like the work of Mother Theresa.
Yup. And it wasn't until the late 70's and early 80's that women were allowed to open checking accounts. Before then they had to have their husbands or a male guardian sign off. Not really that long ago...
@Nonfatlatte - amen girl. It can be done. But some women once they get knocked up realize they just want to be at home with their kids. I have also seen that many people choose to have one person at home because it really does make the home life easier. Babies get sick, a lot. There are a million appointments to take them to, and you have to go post-birth, etc. But if you are in a higher income bracket you can afford live-in help. Easier for us to have it all when we make six figures, but for the women making 50k it usually makes sense for them to just stay home instead of working to pay for daycare.
maybe im the only one... and partially because of the forum we are all at... but am i the only one potentially marrying "up"...
The GF is going to be a Doctor... schwing! Dont get me wrong, I plan on getting the best job (pay, challenge etc) possible, but hey, if shes the breadwinner... i got no probs with that.
How often do we hear of cases where the husband hoses the woman out of her money during the divorce???
I have a friend that was with a very successful professional. She is also successful and makes a very good living. Had a kid together and her life has been heck since. She got hosed big time and is now paying him child support because he refuses to work. The courts are a joke.
So your friend was spreading her legs for some deadbeat and then got hosed for child support when she got knocked up? I remember hearing some quote once upon a time about reaping and sowing....
So the courts are only a joke when rulings are unfavorable for females? We as a society can just handwave away the other 96% of the time when it's men getting screwed, right?
One of my best friends is a divorce attorney. I asked: Is there such a thing as an "offshore marriage"? As in getting married abroad to avoid US divorce law when you do get divorced?
Her response: that is a very complicated question. But if you are domiciled here, you can get divorced here. You are asking the type of q that we charge 550/hour to research, I would need more facts before I can help you and the only reason I can is because I did research on a mexican marriage not too long ago.
Meanwhile, my parents were married abroad but filed for divorce in their state because that was far and away the easiest thing to do, given that's where the marital assets were, were they had lived the longest etc.
If you just go abroad solely to get married and then come back and live here, I think you will have a really hard time forcing the divorce proceedings to take place abroad (unless you have a prenup that states that or something, in which case, why not just get married in the US with an ironclad prenup)? Totally different if you actually live abroad, I assume, but that's not what you alluded to in your post.
If "offshore marriages" were easier/cheaper/better, they would be commonplace and many would do them in lieu of prenups. As far as I know that is not the case and a good prenup and marriage in the US is far and away the best way to go.
Here's my question: what percentage of 21-year-olds who loudly proclaim "I AIN'T NEVER GETTIN HITCHED" actually stick to that 20 years down the road? And what percentage of older dudes villifying marriage are NOT products of bitter divorces?
Sad but true. I'd love to get married, but it just doesn't make sense for higher-earning American men.
Even without today's soul-crushing divorce laws that favor women, monogamy is generally a bad deal for high-status males, who are often able to engage in "soft" polygyny due to high value/attractiveness. For these men, women are depreciating assets with an expiration date of about 35 years. High-earning men usually don't even hit their own peak value until this age, so why invest?
My major concern is having children. What's the best way to reproduce without getting married or incurring serious financial risk (child support/alimony/highway robbery)?
True brih. For a successful man, peak value is around ages 35-45. Not bashing marriage as an institution, but it's actually quite interesting when you consider that women are depreciating assets whereas high-earning men are growing assets. And here's the clincher, these successful men get married early and essentially settle before they've even reached the fair value. Value Investing 101
Btw guys, related to my last post. Laws do change here, so a prenup should be renewed/ammended via postnup every so often to make sure that all provisions in it are valid.
Bottom line, divorce sucks, don't get married and avoid common law marriages if you have a long-term gf.
Just waouh. Good luck
Pre-nups won't protect you. There are lawyers who specialize in shredding pre-nups no matter how seemingly air tight. In order to get them to stick you have to get them re-written and signed every couple of years. Try getting your wife who doesn't have to sign that shit to sign it after you;ve been married 6 years and have a kid. No chance.
I used to think I'd certainly get married prior to having children if only so they wouldn't have to explain the situation to people. I am beginning to think that a more practical situation would be to sit my future 5-year-old down and explain how "Daddy doesn't totally trust Mommy to have his best interests at heart forever."
Also, dmcd, do you know what the average doctor has in terms of overall debt and what the paydown curve on that is? You'll be rolling in her debt well into your 40s before you are rolling in her money she doesn't owe to people. And that's true even if you are already divorced, but at least you'll be helping to subsidize people's quality of health care.
I pass no judgment on people who get married, but it goes back to what Eddie said about selling your options dearly. The expected value of a marriage is pretty steep. 40% divorce rates in the US (real number) and on average guys are losing half their shit (let's assume, though it can be much worse). Expected value at time of marriage is already 20% of your assets at time of divorce and maybe the same on future cash flows. Obviously your exposure is even higher and this wouldn't take into account legal fees for your side of the highly likely court battle. The question is then is it worth that potential downside to get married.
I'll caveat this by saying that my parents have been married (mostly happily) for over 30 years, so its just a numbers game that everyone has to decide for themselves.
Also, wouldn't it be more important for mommy to have the future 5 year old's best interests at heart, rather than Daddy's?
If Daddy is looking for for someone to have his best interests at heart always and forever, maybe he needs to see a shrink, and get those Oedipus complex/ Mommy issues resolved
I think you are confusing me with the gaggle of juveniles that believe women are universally money grubbing whores that frequent the site. I could see how, given the context of this thread, you'd get that impression.
My hypothetical with a 5-year-old would work equally well for a women in the same situation. I don't think this is a gender discussion (most of us just happen to be men) but rather a marriage discussion in a society where even if you control for income men suffer more in divorce. Overall everyone suffers (men, women, children) with the exception of lawyers. The biggest problem with divorce procedings is that the language and precedent is shaped by the desire (often by both parties) to be punitive with money or child custody. If a couple is getting divorced its because one or both parties feels aggrieved. Lawyers feed on this desire and nurture it because it is simply good for business.
As a side note, the least you can do is try and make your ad hominem arguments funny.
Methinks there are some Chateau members here...I'm looking at you, Midas
I think it might be nice to hear from someone who is neither 1.) a survivor of an ugly divorce nor 2.) a college kid.
All of you talking in hypotheticals (not you, Midas, I see where you're coming from) - yes, maybe marriage can clean you out if you get divorced. But... what if you don't get divorced? If you see a long and happy marriage as just an instance of someone leeching off of you, grow up. And if you can't find someone who isn't purely interested in spending your money, the fault lies with you.
As a woman this thread is incredibly depressing...an expiration date of 35 years old...really guys? I would never view my fiancée as having an expiration date for looks, money, or anything (and I hope he wouldn't either).
For the record, my mother had to pay support to an ex-husband so that he could live off of it without working and maintaining the same lifestyle he was accustomed to with my mother. It's not that the courts favor women, it's that they favor whoever doesn't work, and there are reasons for that, too.
It's easy, psychologically, to come together and curse those outside of the "group" when you are in a relatively anonymous forum with a strong group identity (in this case, and specifically in this thread, women are outside the group). You find it on websites like Jezebel, too, where they argue that men suck. I don't like either view, because it criticizes the other sex without taking a good look at yourselves.
Just my thoughts.
For me, the big disconnect is in the quantity of money demanded. I full heartedly agree that the woman is owed something for the services IcelandicBanker mentions. However, the amount that women tend to think they are entitled to is ridiculous. I'll work with the number IcelandicBanker threw out: "Half" or "50%" of the wealth.
First, it is important to note that in today's courts, the woman is entitled not only to the current assets, but also her portion of the FUTURE earnings. So, if you get divorced at age 30, be prepared to shell out a portion of your income for the rest of your career (unless she gets re-married).
So, that leads us to the problem: HALF? Are you JOKING me? So the woman gets 50% of the man's future work product, but what does the man get? He now has to come home and do 100% of the tasks that used to be the woman's responsibility. He has to do 100% of household chores as well as tend to the child during his days. I'd say if the woman feels entitled to a portion of the man's future earnings, the man ought to be entitled to a portion of the woman's work product as well. That's right -- she needs to come to his house and do the damn laundry. Otherwise, it's a one-sided transfer -- hardly fair.
The way I see it is, when a person chooses a mate, they are choosing to get the whole package. This package includes the person's looks, behavior, values, and money/income. When a person chooses to get a divorce, they are giving back the whole package. You can't pick and choose which pieces of the package you want to keep and which ones you don't want anymore. It is an "all or nothing" deal.
Personally, I think there ought to be a cap on the amount of alimony a woman can receive in return for her "work" tending to the home. I'd put that cap at about $100k/year or 20% of future earnings, whichever is less.
Hahahahaha I'm sorry but the thought of that made me laugh. A scorned woman doing your laundry is the last thing you need!!!
Also, I want to do away with alimony for the most part. It's a relic of the fact that women did not have any means to economic equality in the good ol days. Not true anymore so, if you don't have kids? go get a damn job and move on. Maybe there is a legal basis for it but I don't see it being applicable today. Split the cash and retirement money and call it day.
Having kids in a divorce is a totally different animal. Most people, not just women, can't afford all the expenses on their own. Daycare is around 1400k for an infant to one years old. A month. That is more than many person's biweekly paycheck on Main St...
I'm sorry but this is just not the case. 1400 bucks a month for day care? You can easily pay much less than that in MOST places. My cousin goes to a 'prep school day learning center' or some such nonsense and its approx. that number in a major city...the average daycare in the average locality is certainly MUCH lower than 350 a week. You have to think outside of the WASPY wonderland that most of us on this site occupy. If you are making less than 2800 a month (based on your claim that this 1400 number is 'more than most people make in their biweekly paycheck') you certainly should not be sending your kid somewhere that costs 350 bucks a week.
+1 SB for you sir....hit the nail on the fucking head
I am glad to see i am not the only one to think this way... If i ever get married to someone that has far inferior earning power/wealth, it will be for other qualities in her that compensates / she brings to the table (doesn't matter what these are)
But if we get divorced, only my money gets split, her "qualities" stay with her.
wow, some interesting posts on both sides - thanks for sharing.
What is 6 inches long 2 inches wide and makes a woman go wild?
Money.
As a very wizened thinker (female) once wrote "the problem with having it all, is doing it all".
I have to say this divorce point is a very sore point for me, with no exposure to it (don't know anyone that went through a divorce or got screwed from one).
It should be made, by law, part of the marriage procedure, documents be drawn up in event of the marriage failing, that have contingencies built in (ill health, children, adultery), what should happen in each event. Might stop 1 of 2 Vegas marriages too.
Do not EVER use the line women have to take time off to have kids. NO they do not. Life is about choices, and choices have consequences. If you cannot live with the consequence, do not make the choice. If you haven't thought the consequences through that is not my problem.
Additionally, if you want to go down the kids path, I want to quantify the extra time I have to spend at work and thus not with my child at a rate greater than my earning, because I'd rather be at home than at work, so that time is more valuable to me.
Ironically, the way women (as a group, not individuals) are at now is doing their "rights" a disservice. Fewer higher earning men will be willing to settle down, leaving more women sans family (would do wonders for the population problem this planet is having though).
The fact that makes me sick to the back teeth? Check out the Fortune 1000, list, filter by women and have a good look at source of wealth.
I hope this woman's divorce fund goes flat through the floor as it deserves to.
Yes, on average I think that would be the case for two reasons.
1) The level of acrimony in the relationship wouldn't be exacerbated by a protracted legal battle
2) The overall pool of resources wouldn't be syphoned by the former couple's "advocates"
What a simple and elegant solution! Except that for this to work, Mommy would have to trust Daddy to not fuck her and the kid over.
Just start a charity for the support of helpless men ruined by divorce. Before you marry, everything is donated to that charity. And it works basically like a bank account. You can tell the cherity what to invest via online interface, and you can retrieve any kind of money in form of a request for instant support.
Said and done.
Curious to hear, two scenarios with regards to assets (property, equities, cash, etc.)
1) Your assets are in your name and your parents' names. Can she touch this, since there is another major party (parents) involved?
2) Your assets are entirely in your parents name. Can she touch this, since you don't legally own?
Thinking of getting married soon. A few ways to deal with this. All the options are not mutually exclusive: 1) Get married in a foreign jurisdiction that marriage cannot be enforced like Cambodia, or a more man-friendly country like Norway where woman can only take what they bring in. 2) Get a new identity with a foreign passport and use that in the marriage certificate. 3) Set up a Seychelles Holding Company to pledge all your assets there. 4) Set up a trust fund and put all your assets there under your parents name; on the same time tell your parents to execute their will that transferring all the assets in the trust fund upon their death - I guess another 20 years so if she can last it out then, I guess I have no grievance. 5) Marry someone who is richer; if shit goes south, your claim to her money will be a lot more than her claims to yours. 6) Get a prenup.
Prenups tend to be easily thrown out in court, and the woman can use any number of made up lies to lead to it being thrown out. Please do not rely on a prenup. Much more serious precautions need to be taken.
For number 4, how untouchable is this if you put it all in your parents' name? Especially if you buy property/assets during your marriage (but put it solely on your parents' names)?
Interesting post / discussion.
We need more of these on WSO. Because DCF analysis can be googled. Wisdom is harder to come by.
Holy shit this thread blew up. Will read when I have more time- for now I leave you with this:
Prenup, prenup, prenup.
Written by a man who has only thought about marriage in theory. Unless you're already wealthy PRIOR to your marriage, which is unlikely, your prenup isn't going to protect your assets. It will alienate a person you supposedly love and trust more than anyone else. If you're getting married you're going all-in, that's the commitment.
I am married. We have a prenup. I guess i havent been divorced though - so I dont really know how strong it is.
Edit: Also, she thought it was a good idea.
Y'all are talking like you have 10 mil. stashed away in a bank account, at the same time everyone is bi***ing how expensive their rent is. Grow up, you got married, it was you choice, you were not dragged in there by your balls. If you do not want to marry her, then live in a civil union.
"Modern day marriage is just another way of taxing hard working, successful and ambitious men."
Oh God, another "my emotional wounds are bigger than yours" post. Ever since this election seething resentment has creeped out of the woodwork.
Another thread was pretty clear about what their thoughts on a woman's places was: at home, willing to sacrifice any semblance of a career, willing to do ALL child rearing and housework with a smile and blowjob. It's a wonder why those men get divorced.
First of all, get off that high horse. Yes, there is seething resentment that has been exposed, but are you really telling me the left hasn't bitched about every little thing for a decade now? I wouldn't even call this mindset 'the right,' but expressing this viewpoint is perfectly understandable. Marriage is a fine institution, but getting out of that institution for men (even if the woman initiates the divorce) involves them essentially gutting their organs and handing it over to the ex. Sexism is certainly wrong on any level, but this isn't sexism, just an honest appraisal of marriage/divorce laws and how men get completely screwed.
Vel dignissimos aut velit dolorem placeat. Et dolor neque nulla aut facere sed eaque soluta. Qui dolorem aperiam saepe totam.
Officiis consectetur rerum voluptates quas sed. Asperiores mollitia tempora reiciendis aliquid reiciendis magni et.
Eos vitae iure enim aut. Eligendi nemo exercitationem illum rerum qui illo animi. Aut necessitatibus illum minus sunt perferendis asperiores aut. Explicabo unde suscipit aut impedit fugit voluptate in. At quod sit eos. Rerum optio dolore eum iste. Suscipit in beatae sunt maxime quibusdam ab.
Aspernatur assumenda ipsa quas nostrum ut. Velit officiis ut enim omnis ut et omnis officia. Et voluptas magnam distinctio.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Dolorem alias voluptatem consequatur aliquid. Fuga eum in ducimus libero mollitia. Consequatur provident pariatur enim cumque illum labore quos. Alias dolor voluptate aliquam error explicabo et autem. Excepturi ratione iusto et voluptatum.
Nesciunt error autem odit. Id perspiciatis quia cumque neque harum est quia. Quia ea sapiente facere nihil.
Quis porro fuga praesentium est sit. Rem perspiciatis sit quasi sit molestiae odio libero quas.
Eligendi incidunt rerum veritatis exercitationem a cupiditate deserunt. Voluptas ut quia ipsa debitis unde autem. Id est eligendi quia earum. Omnis temporibus veniam totam sed quas reiciendis tenetur.