I dont understand this argument, its either a shareholder concern or a criminal concern? a "conflict of interest" is a term used when a 3rd party needs to be unbiased ex government or law. You wouldn't say its a conflict of interest if your favourite sports team trades their best player

Do you make money when your favorite sports team does well?

Being a Manchester United fan, apparently not

I mean, doesn't basically everyone with a 401k?

Which is exactly the right attitude to have. He's not a hollywood celeb, nor is he even a politician. He was involved in a private scandal, that doesn't compromise his ability to lead a company to profitability, no matter what I think of him a a person.

The market has reacted this way for a reason - Nvidia share prices fell a lot over the past few days.

If the espionage probe was serious (and it was known about in intelligence circles going back as much as a year), it would be handle much differently, with charges brought agains him or his company being sanctioned.

Person A having an affair with Person B when Person B is a direct report or directly within Person A's power in the company is a disqualification for leadership. Full stop. It is an abuse and shows that Person A is willing to abuse their position for personal gain. They cannot be trusted any longer.

Oh, like Bill Clinton?

The one who was impeached?

For lying under oath, right? Not for an affair.

Was he removed from office?

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying I disagree, but you should be aware that it's just an opinion. You're stating it as if it's some sort of objective fact.

Many people could just say the exact opposite of your sentence, i.e. "not a disqualification" and "can still be trusted". Furthermore, These people could supply many historical examples of leaders who did similar things and went on to remain great/effective leaders of the things they were charged to lead.

>> You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying I disagree, but you should be aware that it's just an opinion. You're stating it as if it's some sort of objective fact.

It may not be a fact per se, but in the United States it is widely agreed upon that romantic relationships with subordinates is a big no-no from an ethics perspective (due to power dynamics and high potential for abuse), in addition to being a serious liability for the company.

Exactly how would this constitute a “serious liability” for the company?

When a manager has a romantic relationship with a subordinate they could, theoretically, show that employee favortism and/or make their work life miserable. Now any promotion or raise or privilege the employee earns is under scrutiny. Did the Manager have any say in it? Was another employee dismissed out of hand for the position because they passed on the manager's advances? All of this is a problem when the romantic relationship is known and on the level, when its an affair it is VERY problematic. The employees involved in the affair may sue for retaliation due to some circumstance, or another employee may sue because they feel they were passed over for a promotion or position. Others might have suspected something and been made to feel their job was in danger if they asked questions.

This is moral grandstanding with no substance.

> with charges brought agains him or his company being sanctioned.

With a sane administration that hadn't possibly looked the other way due to emoluments (allegedly), maybe. Who knows what the response will be from the current mob (gentle pun intended).

Spoken like someone who puts all his eggs in something he has no control over. It's crazy how oblivious you are to this insane situation "investing" has become in this country. It's gambling. You don't control anything. You just hope for the best. It's all a house of cards.

[delayed]

> If the espionage probe was serious (and it was known about in intelligence circles going back as much as a year), it would be handle much differently, with charges brought agains him or his company being sanctioned.

My pet theory about why it was leaked is because the very serious reports were sent to the White House and they then did absolutely nothing about it. Just because this, wildly corrupt, current administration has not brought charges does not mean it won't happen in the future.

>If the espionage probe was serious (and it was known about in intelligence circles going back as much as a year), it would be handle much differently, with charges brought agains him or his company being sanctioned.

Are we talking about the administration that pardoned scammers for kickbacks ? I think the timing of this is telling, the charges are likely coming and this is just the first wave of stuff to get out.

We're taught in school that ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but you know, sometimes it's not.

If someone holds NVDA, nothing out of their mouth about NVDA matters to me. Even if they're stating a fact, cool, I can find those from someone else. The one exception is if they're willing to double down right now.