傑夫貝佐斯可能是在車庫裡創立了亞馬遜，但他的成功故事並非從那裡開始——而是始於一位一無所有的年輕媽媽。 2019 年，當貝佐斯在 X 上的一篇文章中表達對他母親的敬意時，全世界都看到了這位養育了當今最富有的男人之一的女人。她並非生來富有，生活當然也不輕鬆。事實上，她是一位十幾歲的母親，為了繼續上學而不得不努力奮鬥。
傑夫貝佐斯 17 歲那年就生下了兒子傑夫，當時她還在上高中。學校管理階層試圖將她開除，但她拒絕接受。據 CNBC 報道，她在劍橋大學畢業典禮演講中回憶道：“這對我來說毫無意義，所以我不斷反駁。”學校最終讓步了——但條件很殘酷。她不被允許與其他學生交談，在餐廳吃飯，甚至不被允許在畢業典禮上走過舞台。
當傑夫 17 個月大時，傑克琳已經與他的親生父親特德喬根森離婚了。為了養活自己和兒子，她參加了秘書課程並找到了一份月薪 190 美元的工作。這些錢幾乎不夠付房租，當她付不起電話費時，她的父親就安裝了對講機系統，以便她可以每天早上 7 點與父母聯繫。 「這樣我們才能住在公寓裡，」她解釋道。
傑克琳沒有讓任何事情阻止她繼續學業。她就讀夜校，帶著小傑夫去上課，還提著兩個行李袋──一個裝課本，一個裝尿布。正是在其中一門課程上，她遇到了她未來的丈夫邁克·貝佐斯 (Mike Bezos)，一位古巴難民，他後來把傑夫當作自己的孩子撫養。
1995 年，傑夫向貝佐斯的父母提出了一個想法——開設一家線上書店，這為貝佐斯一家的生活帶來了巨大的改變。傑克琳和麥克向兒子的新創公司投資了 25 萬美元，這在當時是一個冒險的舉動。這場賭博的結果出乎所有人的意料。根據彭博社報道，到 2018 年，他們在亞馬遜的股份價值已達 300 億美元。
隨著亞馬遜股價持續成長，他們的投資可能會進一步升值。然而，計算它們現在的價值並不像比較亞馬遜 2018 年的股價和 2025 年的股價那麼簡單。
2022 年，亞馬遜進行了 20 比 1 的股票分割，這大大改變了股價和所有權份額的衡量方式。這意味著：
每股價格除以 20——例如，亞馬遜拆股前的價格為每股 1,834.40 美元，拆股後變為每股 91.72 美元。
每個投資者擁有的股票數量乘以 20，這意味著之前擁有 1 股的人現在擁有 20 股。
從今天的歷史股價來看，它們似乎已經根據拆股進行了調整，這意味著顯示的數字已經除以 20。
如果傑克琳和麥克貝佐斯在 2018 年持有 1,660 萬股股票，那麼在亞馬遜 2022 年進行 1 拆 20 的股票分割後，他們現在將擁有 3.32 億股股票。
截至2月8日，亞馬遜股價已飆升至每股229.15美元。如果她們自 2018 年以來沒有出售或捐贈任何大量股票，那麼她們的淨資產總額現在可能約為 761 億美元——這使得傑琳·貝佐斯有可能成為世界上最富有的女性之一。
然而，自 1999 年以來，有關其股票的準確報告尚未公開，因此這一估計完全基於先前的報告和亞馬遜的股票表現，而不是最近確認的披露。
從一個為接受教育而奮鬥的少女媽媽，到成為全球最有價值公司之一的億萬富翁投資者，她的歷程證明了勇氣和決心可以改變一切。
Jeff Bezos may have built Amazon in a garage, but his success story didn't start there—it started with a teen mom who had nothing. When Bezos honored his mother in a post on X in 2019, the world saw the woman who raised one of the richest men alive. She wasn't born into wealth, and she certainly didn't have it easy. In fact, she was a teenage mother who had to fight just to stay in school.
Jacklyn Bezos gave birth to Jeff at just 17 years old while still in high school. The school administration tried to kick her out, but she refused to accept it. "It didn't make any sense to me, so I pushed back and I kept on pushing back," she recalled in a commencement speech at Cambridge College, as reported by CNBC. The school relented—but with cruel conditions. She wasn't allowed to talk to other students, eat in the cafeteria, or even walk across the stage at graduation.
By the time Jeff was 17 months old, Jacklyn was already divorced from his biological father, Ted Jorgensen. Determined to make a life for herself and her son, she took secretarial classes and landed a job that paid $190 a month. It was barely enough to afford rent, so when she couldn't pay for a phone, her father rigged a walkie-talkie system so she could check in with her parents at 7 a.m. every day. "That's how we were able to stay in an apartment," she explained.
Jacklyn didn't let anything stop her from continuing her education. She enrolled in night school, bringing baby Jeff with her to class, carrying two duffel bags—one for textbooks, one for diapers. It was in one of those classes that she met her future husband, Mike Bezos, a Cuban refugee who would go on to raise Jeff as his own.
Life changed dramatically for the Bezos family in 1995 when Jeff pitched an idea to his parents—an online bookstore. Jacklyn and Mike invested $250,000 in their son's startup, a risky move at the time. That gamble paid off in a way no one could have predicted. By 2018, their stake in Amazon was reportedly worth $30 billion, according to Bloomberg.
With Amazon's stock continuing to grow, their investment has likely appreciated even further. However, calculating their current worth isn't as simple as just comparing Amazon's 2018 stock price to its 2025 price.
In 2022, Amazon executed a 20-for-1 stock split, which dramatically changed how share prices and ownership stakes are measured. This means:
The price per share was divided by 20—for example, Amazon's pre-split price of $1,834.40 per share became $91.72 per share post-split.
The number of shares each investor owned multiplied by 20—meaning anyone who had 1 share before now had 20.
When looking at historical stock prices today, they appear adjusted for the split, meaning the numbers shown have already been divided by 20. For example, on Aug. 2, 2018 at the time the Bloomberg article was published, Amazon's stock price appears as $91.72 per share in adjusted historical data, but the actual pre-split price was $1,834.40.
If Jacklyn and Mike Bezos held 16.6 million shares in 2018, then after Amazon's 20-for-1 stock split in 2022, they would now own 332 million shares.
As of Feb. 8, Amazon's stock price has surged to $229.15 per share. If they haven't sold or donated any significant number of shares since 2018, their combined net worth could now be approximately $76.1 billion—making Jacklyn Bezos potentially one of the wealthiest women in the world.
However, exact reporting on their shares has not been made public since 1999, so this estimate is based solely on previous reports and Amazon's stock performance rather than confirmed recent disclosures.
From a teenage mom who had to fight for her education to a billionaire investor in one of the world's most valuable companies, her journey proves that grit and determination can change everything.
If everything goes smoothly, Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin will soon reach orbit for the first time, and the private space industry may have another contender
貝佐斯宣布將卸任亞馬遜CEO 。貝佐斯表示，他計劃在今年夏天移交權力，並過渡到執行董事長一職。第三季度開始，將由亞馬遜雲計算部門的首席執行官安迪·賈西接替貝佐斯管理整個公司。
BREAKING: Amazon has announced its founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is to step down from running the business as it reported record revenues for its core Christmas quarter, topping $100bn for the first time with help from the coronavirus pandemic***亞馬遜CEO貝佐斯承諾提供100億美元應對氣候變化 |
Jeff Bezos: Ask yourself these 12 questions to live a long, happy life
https://www.cnbc.com/.../amazon-billionaire-ceo-jeff-bezos-ask-you...
2019/04/07 - Jeff Bezos says that in the end, "we are our choices." In a speech to Princeton grads in 2010, the Amazon CEO offers a list of questions for us to reflect on, in hopes that they'll help us make better choices and ultimately live a ...
【不想活到80歲才後悔，貝佐斯：先問自己12個問題】
如何活出快樂、成功而長壽人生？相信是很多人都想知道的一件事。
亞馬遜創辦人貝佐斯認為，不論你成功與否，晚年回首過往時，真正覺得精彩的，不是戶頭裡有幾位數，而是年輕時做了哪些「選擇」，讓你走到如今的景況。
但如何抉擇出不後悔的人生？他說：「不妨先問問自己這12個問題。」
Jeff Bezos will still be the world's richest man.
Jeff Bezos 離婚的新聞，我們就不提了！
A bombshell personal blog post from the world’s richest man.
THEVERGE.COM
Jeff Bezos says National Enquirer is threatening to publish his nude photos
"Rather than capitulate to extortion and blackmail, I’ve decided to publish exactly what they sent me, despite the personal cost and embarrassment they threaten."
The following statement was posted by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post newspaper, to Medium. In the letter, Bezos accuses the National Enquirer and its publisher David Pecker of "extortion and blackmail." The text is reprinted below, verbatim, with formatting edits:
No thank you, Mr. Pecker
Something unusual happened to me yesterday. Actually, for me it wasn’t just unusual — it was a first. I was made an offer I couldn’t refuse. Or at least that’s what the top people at the National Enquirer thought. I’m glad they thought that, because it emboldened them to put it all in writing. Rather than capitulate to extortion and blackmail, I’ve decided to publish exactly what they sent me, despite the personal cost and embarrassment they threaten.
AMI, the owner of the National Enquirer, led by David Pecker, recently entered into an immunity deal with the Department of Justice related to their role in the so-called “Catch and Kill” process on behalf of President Trump and his election campaign. Mr. Pecker and his company have also been investigated for various actions they’ve taken on behalf of the Saudi Government.
And sometimes Mr. Pecker mixes it all together:
“After Mr. Trump became president, he rewarded Mr. Pecker’s loyalty with a White House dinner to which the media executive brought a guest with important ties to the royals in Saudi Arabia. At the time, Mr. Pecker was pursuing business there while also hunting for financing for acquisitions…” NYT: David Pecker, Chief of National Enquirer’s Publisher, Is Said to Get Immunity in Trump Inquiry
Federal investigators and legitimate media have of course suspected and proved that Mr. Pecker has used the Enquirer and AMI for political reasons. And yet AMI keeps claiming otherwise:
“American Media emphatically rejects any assertion that its reporting was instigated, dictated or influenced in any manner by external forces, political or otherwise.”
Of course, legitimate media have been challenging that assertion for a long time:
I didn’t know much about most of that a few weeks ago when intimate texts messages from me were published in the National Enquirer. I engaged investigators to learn how those texts were obtained, and to determine the motives for the many unusual actions taken by the Enquirer. As it turns out, there are now several independent investigations looking into this matter.
To lead my investigation, I retained Gavin de Becker. I’ve known Mr. de Becker for twenty years, his expertise in this arena is excellent, and he’s one of the smartest and most capable leaders I know. I asked him to prioritize protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter.
Here’s a piece of context: My ownership of the Washington Post is a complexifier for me. It’s unavoidable that certain powerful people who experience Washington Post news coverage will wrongly conclude I am their enemy.
President Trump is one of those people, obvious by his many tweets. Also, The Post’s essential and unrelenting coverage of the murder of its columnist Jamal Khashoggi is undoubtedly unpopular in certain circles.(Even though The Post is a complexifier for me, I do not at all regret my investment. The Post is a critical institution with a critical mission. My stewardship of The Post and my support of its mission, which will remain unswerving, is something I will be most proud of when I’m 90 and reviewing my life, if I’m lucky enough to live that long, regardless of any complexities it creates for me.)
Back to the story: Several days ago, an AMI leader advised us that Mr. Pecker is “apoplectic” about our investigation. For reasons still to be better understood, the Saudi angle seems to hit a particularly sensitive nerve.
A few days after hearing about Mr. Pecker’s apoplexy, we were approached, verbally at first, with an offer. They said they had more of my text messages and photos that they would publish if we didn’t stop our investigation.
My lawyers argued that AMI has no right to publish photos since any person holds the copyright to their own photos, and since the photos in themselves don’t add anything newsworthy.
AMI’s claim of newsworthiness is that the photos are necessary to show Amazon shareholders that my business judgment is terrible. I founded Amazon in my garage 24 years ago, and drove all the packages to the post office myself. Today, Amazon employs more than 600,000 people, just finished its most profitable year ever, even while investing heavily in new initiatives, and it’s usually somewhere between the #1 and #5 most valuable company in the world. I will let those results speak for themselves.
OK, back to their threat to publish intimate photos of me. I guess we (me, my lawyers, and Gavin de Becker) didn’t react to the generalized threat with enough fear, so they sent this:
From: Howard, Dylan (Chief Content Officer, AMI)Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:33 PMTo: Martin Singer (litigation counsel for Mr. de Becker)Subject:. Jeff Bezos & Ms. Lauren Sanchez PhotosCONFIDENTIAL & NOT FOR DISTRIBIUTIONMarty:I am leaving the office for the night. I will be available on my cell — 917 XXX-XXXX.However, in the interests of expediating this situation, and with The Washington Post poised to publish unsubstantiated rumors of The National Enquirer’s initial report, I wanted to describe to you the photos obtained during our newsgathering.In addition to the “below the belt selfie — otherwise colloquially known as a ‘d*ck pick’” — The Enquirer obtained a further nine images. These include:
- Mr. Bezos face selfie at what appears to be a business meeting.
- Ms. Sanchez response — a photograph of her smoking a cigar in what appears to be a simulated oral sex scene.
- A shirtless Mr. Bezos holding his phone in his left hand — while wearing his wedding ring. He’s wearing either tight black cargo pants or shorts — and his semi-erect manhood is penetrating the zipper of said garment.
- A full-length body selfie of Mr. Bezos wearing just a pair of tight black boxer-briefs or trunks, with his phone in his left hand — while wearing his wedding ring.
- A selfie of Mr. Bezos fully clothed.
- A full-length scantily-clad body shot with short trunks.· A naked selfie in a bathroom — while wearing his wedding ring. Mr. Bezos is wearing nothing but a white towel — and the top of his pubic region can be seen.
- Ms. Sanchez wearing a plunging red neckline dress revealing her cleavage and a glimpse of her nether region.
- Ms. Sanchez wearing a two-piece red bikini with gold detail dress revealing her cleavage.
It would give no editor pleasure to send this email. I hope common sense can prevail — and quickly.Dylan.
Well, that got my attention. But not in the way they likely hoped. Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? (On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake.)
In the AMI letters I’m making public, you will see the precise details of their extortionate proposal: They will publish the personal photos unless Gavin de Becker and I make the specific false public statement to the press that we “have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.”
If we do not agree to affirmatively publicize that specific lie, they say they’ll publish the photos, and quickly. And there’s an associated threat: They’ll keep the photos on hand and publish them in the future if we ever deviate from that lie.
Be assured, no real journalists ever propose anything like what is happening here: I will not report embarrassing information about you if you do X for me. And if you don’t do X quickly, I will report the embarrassing information.
Nothing I might write here could tell the National Enquirer story as eloquently as their own words below.
These communications cement AMI’s long-earned reputation for weaponizing journalistic privileges, hiding behind important protections, and ignoring the tenets and purpose of true journalism. Of course I don’t want personal photos published, but I also won’t participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks, and corruption. I prefer to stand up, roll this log over, and see what crawls out.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bezos
[Editors note: Bezos’ Medium post continues with the following emails. Bloomberg has omitted email addresses and phone numbers contained in the original post. Beyond that, the below is reprinted verbatim with formatting edits.]
From: Fine, Jon (Deputy General Counsel, AMI)Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 5:57 PMTo: Martin Singer (Mr de Becker’s attorney)Subject: Re: EXTERNAL* RE: Bezos et al / American Media et alMarty -Here are our proposed terms:1. A full and complete mutual release of all claims that American Media, on the one hand, and Jeff Bezos and Gavin de Becker (the “Bezos Parties”), on the other, may have against each other.2. A public, mutually-agreed upon acknowledgment from the Bezos Parties, released through a mutually-agreeable news outlet, affirming that they have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AM’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces, and an agreement that they will cease referring to such a possibility.3. AM agrees not to publish, distribute, share, or describe unpublished texts and photos (the “Unpublished Materials”).4. AM affirms that it undertook no electronic eavesdropping in connection with its reporting and has no knowledge of such conduct.5. The agreement is completely confidential.6. In the case of a breach of the agreement by one or more of the Bezos Parties, AM is released from its obligations under the agreement, and may publish the Unpublished Materials.7. Any other disputes arising out of this agreement shall first be submitted to JAMS mediation in CaliforniaThank you,JonDeputy General Counsel, MediaAmerican Media, LLCJon P. FineDeputy General Counsel, MediaFebruary 5, 2019Via email:Martin D. SingerLaveley & SingerRe: Jeff Bezos / American Media, LLC, et al.Dear Mr. Singer:I write in response to your February 4, 2019, letter to Dylan Howard, and to address serious concerns we have regarding the continuing defamatory activities of your client and his representatives regarding American Media’s motivations in its recent reporting about your client.As a primary matter, please be advised that our newsgathering and reporting on matters involving your client, including any use of your client’s “private photographs,” has been, and will continue to be, consistent with applicable laws. As you know, “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting . . . is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 USC Sec. 107. With millions of Americans having a vested interest in the success of Amazon, of which your client remains founder, chairman, CEO, and president, an exploration of Mr. Bezos’ judgment as reflected by his texts and photos is indeed newsworthy and in the public interest.Beyond the copyright issues you raise, we also find it necessary to address various unsubstantiated defamatory statements and scurrilous rumors attributed to your client’s representatives in the press suggesting that “strong leads point to political motives”1 in the publication of The National Enquirer story. Indeed, you yourself declared the “politically motivated underpinnings” of our reporting to be “self-evident” in your correspondence on Mr. de Becker’s behalf to Mr. Howard dated January 31, 2019.Once again, as I advised you in my February 1 response to your January 31 correspondence, American Media emphatically rejects any assertion that its reporting was instigated, dictated or influenced in any manner by external forces, political or otherwise. Simply put, this was and is a news story.Yet, it is our understanding that your client’s representatives, including the Washington Post, continue to pursue and to disseminate these false and spurious allegations in a manner that is injurious to American Media and its executives.Accordingly, we hereby demand that you cease and desist such defamatory conduct immediately. Any further dissemination of these false, vicious, speculative and unsubstantiated statements is done at your client’s peril.Absent the immediate cessation of the defamatory conduct, we will have no choice but to pursue all remedies available under applicable law.As I advised previously, we stand by the legality of our newsgathering and reporting on this matter of public interest and concern. Moreover, American Media is undeterred from continuing its reporting on a story that is unambiguously in the public interest — a position Mr. Bezos clearly appreciates as reflected in Boies Schiller January 9 letter to American Media stating that your client “does not intend to discourage reporting about him” and “supports journalistic efforts.”That said, if your client agrees to cease and desist such defamatory behavior, we are willing to engage in constructive conversations regarding the texts and photos which we have in our possession. Dylan Howard stands ready to discuss the matter at your convenience.All other rights, claims, counterclaims and defenses are specifically reserved and not waived.Sincerely,1 https://www.thedailybeast.com/bezos-investigators-question-the-brother-of-his-mistress-lauren-sanchez-in-national-enquirer-leak-probe(Attributed to your client Gavin de Becker)
沒有留言:
張貼留言