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.
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.
I don’t think she’s likely to sell it right away, but I do think she’s a lot more likely to sell it sooner than they would have together as of last week.
That change is still material to the future outlook as the price is the intersection of supply and demand and the predicted supply of $NVDA shares for sale just increased by scores of billions of dollars worth.
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.
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.
Additionally the regulations between the two are not the same.
For example, in my home state of Massachusetts, for-profit utilities are required to participate in the state mandated home efficiency subsidy program, MassSave and add surcharges to the delivery charge, to a state-wide cost of $4.5 billion for 2025 - 2027.
Municipal utilities are exempt.
We’re at the bottom of the list on this post, because it’s looking at recent inflation, but municipal utilities cost much less in Mass. But there are many components to this difference.
It’s totally reasonable to say “I think I am too exposed to US large cap companies, I’d rather take my gains now and diversify more to international and mid and small cap.”
He doesn’t say what he’s reinvesting in - or whether he’s still exposed to large cap companies through something like VT.
I suspect the commenter didn’t actual read the article, but is inferring from past articles.
Some of the NYT’s past articles on accounting practices have been… strange to say the least.
This one from the last year on SpaceX was one of my favorites, with one of the experts claiming without evidence that carrying forward operating losses was only ever intended for companies struggling in difficult times:
"A Federal Law Gray Area Allows Meta a Potentially Massive Tax Break."
... or something similar.
The focus could be less about Meta and more about the law. It's not like there's something special about Meta. The vast majority of corporations would do this if it was profitable.
claiming without evidence that carrying forward operating losses was only ever intended for companies struggling in difficult times
That's what the original purpose was and it's widely acknowledged as such by the tax community. The final law ended up being broader but at the same time there was less effort by companies to avoid taxes back then. You'd have to go back to the congressional minutes for an authoritative source but the onus for that is on you.
The purpose as I’ve understood it is that it’s to enact fairness between a business that makes steady profits every year - and a business that alternates between losses and profits year to year.
They first enacted this in 1919. And then repealed it in 1933. Then when they restored in 1939, they clarified:
> The bill, together with the committee amendments, permits taxpayers
to carry over net operating business losses for a period of 2 years.
Prior to the Revenue Act of 1932, such 2-year carry-over was allowed.
No net loss has ever been allowed for a greater period than 2 years.
In the Revenue Act of 1932, the 2-year net loss carry-over was
reduced to 1 year and in the National Industrial Recovery Act the
net loss carry-over was entirely eliminated. As a result of the
elimination of this carry-over, a business with alternating profit
and loss is required to pay higher taxes over a period of years than
a business with stable profits, although the average income of the
two firms is equal. New enterprises and the capital-goods indus-
tries are especially subject to wide fluctuations in earnings. It is,
therefore, believed that the allowance of a net operating business
loss carry-over will greatly aid business and stimulate new enter-
prises." (Emphasis supplied.) H. R. Rep. No. 855, 76th Cong.,
1st Sess.
I was surprised by how much I liked the Muse avatar and its customization options. It’s very good at coming up with something decent looking based on your prompts, and animating it.
The services without the custom avatar now feel like they’re missing something.
As a kid I used to love the video game “Megaman Battle Network”, which depicts a world where everyone walks around with an PDA device carrying a fully customized AI buddy that navigates the internet for them. It was the first time I felt like we were getting close to that.
But even with the nostalgia, I don’t think I can ever connect up a Meta owned agent service to all of my accounts and information.
My layman definition is it’s the people writing in major newspapers, the people getting paid by CNN to sit in a half circle on their news analysis shows, etc.
Is Peter Zeihan “mainstream”?
The only time I remember anyone speculating that Russia was in trouble was the short lived Wagner Rebellion - because nothing like it had happened before. But that lasted … two days?
Going on Joe Rogan and having a million YouTube followers is absolutely the modern definition of mainstream.
Also you appear to have been living in a different algorithmic bubble. Joe Biden was literally on stage multiple times saying everything I listed. If a democrat US president isnt mainstream, I don’t think your assessment of reality is accurate.
No wonder this account is such a font of idiocy and backwards takes — it considers "Joe Rogan" to be a serious mainstream source of information.
If "mainstream" counts as having lots of viewers, fine.
But no one who is serious about information, especially about geopolitical information would ever mistake a numerous count of viewers for the serious multi-layer vetting and double-checking of information that happened in a serious old-school newsroom, or give them anything like the same kind of credibility.
Yet this account clearly gives such massively biased and uninformed podcasters the kind of credulous belief formerly reserved for the the likes of Chet Huntley and Walter Cronkite, which no longer exists in any newsroom today.
So, a great example of Dunning-Kruger, where the most ignorant spout the most nonsense with the greatest confidence — explains the plethora of nonsense in the posts.
And NO, those were not the narratives of any actual serious reporter or govt figure. I've followed this very closely from before the 2022 invasion; some I'd heard of as remarkably optimistic takes, and some I literally never heard of.
The entire world, including Putin, was stunned Ukraine did not fall in three days. It was pretty much universally accepted that Russia was the second best military in the world. Of course, it was also soon shown that RU was not even the second best military in Ukraine.
Only recently, since the Operation Spiderweb and the 'long-range sanctions' making serious strikes deep inside Russia disabling military targets, oil production & transport, and dual-purpose logistics, and since the RU casualties have exceeded 1000 dead/month and RU started LOSING land, have any serious people started speculating about cracks in RU's ability to continue, and those are still tentative.
Go read the writings of people with ACTUAL knowledge of Russia and Ukraine, such as Garry Kasparov, Bill Browder, Volodomor Zelenskyy, all of whom are on Xitter or Substack, since you get your media from that type of sources.
You get your information from clowns, it is no surprise you post like a clown (no insult meant to professional clowns).
The only thing that’s egregious is the batteries.
They tape the batteries to the case, and to remove them you have to do this complex twirling motion with tweezers to pull the tape out from under the battery. If the tape snaps during this then the documentation basically says get a new case.
reply