It is baffling to read comments that this is excusable or he should be retained 'in interest of the shareholders'. Setting aside the obviously poor judgement, the appearance of impropriety has serious ammunition behind a situation that already looked weird. More practically, he's compromised now. Whether it's further scandal or the impending criminal investigations, there might be further hooks people have on him.

The quote about succession planning is also a little out of context, he phrased it more that there should be continual information and responsibility sharing such that succession planning is effectively redundant or unnecessary.

I always wondered why investors were ok with not having any control due to dual structure shares and board composition. A "Great Men" theory of the world is a convenient and satisfying narrative, but it's usually not the best at explaining things. As the saying goes, "The cemeteries are full of indispensable men".

A lot of people here hold NVDA shares, so there is a lot of conflict of interest in the comments.

People have a lot of net worth tied into the economy. Nvidia is a lynchpin in the economy. People are biased towards keeping their net worth up. It’s not that deep, people want the tendies to continue printing.

I find it interesting to see so much blame being directed at the act of removing one person who may have been holding up trillions of value in the stock market, rather than at the market and industry conditions that led to so much value being supported by one person in the first place.

One of the greatest fallacies of modern times is that people are not human. There is this expectation that people will be perfect and flawless and make zero mistakes. That is incongruent with human nature. The dude had two consensual relationships outside his marriage. To err is human... this is all so overblown.

Meanwhile we have a felon in the white house (sexual assault) among an immeasurable number of other supposed crimes

This guy had a cult of personality I did not know about until this comment thread.

"He created so much shareholder value."

"Unlike Elon he shared the wealth with the company."

"The US is worse off without him."

I'm sorry but a patsy who is this gullible, or a CCP-friendly traitor that is this slimy (the jury is still out), should not be in this position of power.

Cool for all he accomplished so far. This isn't a situation that deserves a second chance.

> baffling to read comments that this is excusable or he should be retained 'in interest of the shareholders'

If you want Exhibit A for the moral corruption of Silicon Valley’s culture, this is it. And it’s not tied to shareholdings. It’s the quasi-monarchic strain of worship that has been poisoning Valley culture for at least a decade now.

What's really inexcusable about it? It might be part of the standard US corporate culture, but still idiotic.

"Appearance of impropriety". Fuck all you puritans.

Ah yes. Being gay disqualified you from security clearance. Why? Because if you are gay, then you can be blackmailed. Why? Because you might lose your security clearance.

A company is not required to maintain a look of propriety. A company is not required to not look fishy. A company is not required to care how it is observed by the public at large. It is required only to maximize shareholder value.

There is no doubt that his sexscapades were stupid, but at the same time there is only one question that should matter for the board. Will the shareholders make more money with him or without?