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?

▲

csh0 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

“Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”[0]

Supreme Court disagrees that a company is required “only required to maximize shareholder value”, do you have any evidence to support your claim otherwise?

[0]https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/13-354.ht...

▲

SaucyWrong 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This person does not have any evidence to support their claim. The notion that shareholder primacy is enshrined in settled law (when in fact, as you point out, the opposite is true) is widely believed in the HN comments pages.

	▲	gtirloni 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's a simple concept to understand so pick stick to it as being the truth.

▲

hirako2000 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Within the constraints of the law is my understanding.

▲

criddell 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There is no doubt that his sexscapades were stupid

Sure, but his selling into China might be criminal. Or would you also excuse criminal behavior that's profitable?

▲

therealdrag0 2 days ago | parent [-]

Maybe the board knows more than we do, but so far there is no public substantiation of these points. Obviously if he’s convicted, he can’t be CEO from jail, but why make company decisions a day after a new story broke?

	▲	criddell 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Of course the board knows more then you and me.

▲

bluefirebrand 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> there is only one question that should matter for the board. Will the shareholders make more money with him or without?

I think "can we trust this person to act in the best interests of this company?" is a more accurate question

I don't think these scandals are in NVidias best interest, and the hits the share value have taken seem to support that

▲

deaton 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Shareholder primacy at the expense of everything else is a ridiculous and relatively new idea. There is no reason that it has to be that way other than that Milton Friedman thought it was a good optimization problem.