Could be that breaking embargo and sleeping with spies had something to do with it. Wild guess, I know.

Plus Jensen Huang is an immigrant from Taiwan. And this administration does not like people who haven't been born on this geographical soil (being not born on US soil, I am obviously not against it, just pointing out obvious animosity of current US administration towards immigrants in general)

Trump likes successful ones:

Musk, Vivek, etc.

you mean financially successful right? Otherwise both are terrible parasites and recently we just seeing tip of an iceberg when it comes to Vivek (I know 2 people that worked for him, but I will leave it at that).

The absolute obliviousness of computer technicians to how business or politics work.

I don't know why you're getting downvotes. The parent comment, "Most likely the internal findings from the investigation point to something more troubling/illegal", is comical. The information on the public record already points to something troubling/illegal, as you just pointed out!

Like selling hardware to potential competitors of US AI inference services? The extent of the compute laundering has been pretty well covered.

I have a feeling we'll know the reasons for certain when Nvidia's stance on open models and local AI does an about-face.

A CEO admitting to an affair with a customer after previously denying it, seems like a sufficient reason for removal, even before you add the geopolitical intrigue.

I don't follow this logic. Why is an affair with a customer grounds for announcing a resignation that caused an instant 10% stock price drop?

Because the customer in question raises questions of the CEO's judgement, plus the possibility of knowledge that the target was violating sanctions. We don't know. That's why it's a bad situation for the stock.

The stock seems to be responding more heavily to the potential loss of Jensen than it does to the potential continuation of Jensen given new knowledge.

It also seems like there’s a high potential for half of Jensen’s position to be granted in a subsequent divorce decree, meaning there could be enormous selling pressure in the next several years.

Doesn't he only own like 3% of the stock? His wife would get 1.5% of the company and I see no reason for her to liquidate all of it right away.

[delayed]

He didn’t come clean on his own accord - he was faced with irrefutable evidence and admitted it.

How can you trust anything he says after this?

Why should regulators or other customers believe any promises made by him?

His credibility is shot - the day to day stock prices changes are irrelevant.

Morality is not a straight line, once someone has cheated they sort of accepted it for themselves after feeling guilty but that doesn't transfer to other places where someones morals are challenged.

He’s a dork with 100’s of billions, testing the rules. A bit like a teenager given infinite resources.

Imo that’s danger zone shit for the company, whether you’re offended by the morality bits or not.

You mean the short trader who wrote a report and pushed it is the good guy?

Maybe he will donate his proceeds to charity...

Yes. We should keep all bad things hidden. In the name of shareholder value.

He's baggin baddies, and blowing up stock prices. I honestly don't see the problem. Bought more NVDA, this dip is just free money.

You should never trust any CEO in first place, don’t know why everyone is trying to treat this guy as a school teacher.

Relationships and stock price are built on trust. An affair, a relationship with a customer/subordinate, and an attempted cover-up are all breaches of that trust.

> Why is an affair with a customer grounds for announcing a resignation that caused an instant 10% stock price drop?

OP said

>A CEO admitting to an affair with a customer *after previously denying it*, seems like a sufficient reason for removal

It's not the crime. It's the cover up.

In this case Jensen either 1) lied to the board about the affair, 2) directed the Nvidia PR to publish a materially false statement about it, or 3) both.

From a company governance standpoint it's incredibly hard to trust Jensen when he's either lying to you, using the company to protect his personal life, or (again) both.

Admitting to the affair with a customer is a nothingburger. Directing the company to release a false statement about it, and that customer turns out to be a Chinese asset if a BIG fucking deal.

Lying about it served no one's interest but Jensen's, and ended up hurting the company significantly.

Because it potentially gives the affair partner a lever to bypass internal company controls.

I'd go as far as to say the second leak helps him a bit, by reframing this as a cheating scandal rather than it being more about him knowingly evading an embargo.

Having an affair with your direct report also wildly increases the risk that Nvidia would be embroiled in high-profile lawsuits, either for sexual harassment or favoritism

Yea also multiple affair partners just increases the risk one of them will blackmail, which can 100% have effects on the bottom line.

Which is still better than prosecution for evading sanctions on China by working with a Chinese spy.

>increases the risk that Nvidia would be embroiled in high-profile lawsuits, either for sexual harassment or favoritism

Firing him doesn’t make them any leas liable for any potential sexual harassment or favoritism that already happened

Whether the board knowingly allowed the problem to continue can absolutely factor into the company’s liability.

I suspect that there gotta be something else going on with that as well. Maybe someone in the company wanna take his position or something.

Two back to back including one with a subordinate and one involving a person violating export controls though are pretty tough to weather. And I doubt that's the end of the affairs too, I'm not a Huang is months away from having dated every woman on earth extrapolationist but I also doubt he's only had (or has) 2.

Nvidia's previous denials are a significant issue from a board of directors position. He either lied to the board about it, directed the company's PR people to make a false statement about it, or both. And that lie turned out to be material (in a SEC sense of the word material).

It would be very difficult for the board to regain trust in his ability to make choices that are correct for Nvidia, rather than himself.