BreakingThursday 12 November 2026 · announced at 8:48 a.m. in New York
Jensen Huang has resigned as Nvidia’s chief executive
Nvidia’s board said on Thursday that Huang has resigned as president, chief executive and a director, effective immediately. He founded the company in 1993 and ran it for 33 years. The statement gives no findings from the investigation the board opened on Sunday.
Interim chiefColette Kress, who stays on as chief financial officer. The board is searching for a permanent successor inside and outside the company.
The boardHarvey C. Jones becomes chair, the first in Nvidia’s history.
The sharesDown about 10% in pre-market trading after the announcement, according to Bloomberg.
What is nextThird-quarter results on Tuesday 17 November, as scheduled.
Our forecast is settled. We put his chance of staying at 60% on Tuesday and cut it to 20% this morning after the second allegation. He resigned hours later. Everything below was written before the announcement and is kept as published.
Sources: Nvidia, “NVIDIA Announces CEO Transition”, 12 November 2026; Bloomberg; CNN.
Earlier todayThursday 12 November 2026 · written before the resignation
A second allegation, and a board deciding his future
On Wednesday The New York Times reported that Jensen Huang also had a relationship with Kimberly Powell, Nvidia’s vice president of healthcare, who reports directly to him. The Wall Street Journal then reported that the board was preparing to remove him, and directors met that night.
No decision has been announced and Huang remains chief executive. Nvidia declined to comment on the report and Ms Powell has not responded. The allegation is unconfirmed.
$160.17-7.8%Thursday pre-market, 7:16 a.m. in New York
-14.2%Since Friday’s close
Sources: The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, as reported by CNBC, Axios, Forbes and The Hill, 11 and 12 November 2026; Yahoo Finance prices, including extended hours. The gold line is trading after Wednesday’s close. The article text below was written before this update.
Special Report · Exclusive Analysis
Nvidia’s Abyss in the Eyes of Chinese Intelligence
Jensen Huang and Extramarital Affairs
Mihail Gaydarov
Founder, Managing Partner and Chief Financial Analyst
NvidiaThe precedentsThe state: Washington and Beijing
-$192bnGone in one session
Part I · The market
The Most Expensive Affair in Market History
A textbook fall in percentage terms. A record in dollars.
By Mihail Gaydarov
On Sunday night, Jensen Huang, one of the most prominent figures in the area of business and one of the facilitators of the AI industry, told Nvidia staff that he had been unfaithful to his wife. By Monday’s close the stock had recorded a fall of 4.3%, equating to $192bn of value gone.[1] To put that in perspective, the loss was nearly 2x the whole market value of HP when it forced its CEO, Mark Hurd, out in 2010.[2]
Figure 1 Market value, $bnTFR Markets
One day at Nvidia against whole companies
Nvidia’s loss on Monday 9 November 2026, set beside the entire market value of other companies on the eve of their own CEO scandals. The green line marks $192bn.
NvidiaValue lost in one day, 2026
$192bn
HPWhole company, 2010
$108bn
McDonald’sWhole company, 2019
$149bn
NestleWhole company, 2025
$243bn
IntelWhole company, 2018
$249bn
050100150200250
Sources: Yahoo Finance; 24/7 Wall St.; Associated Press. Hover or tap a row for detail.The Financier Review
When we look at percentages, the market followed the regular script. The standard academic study of 325 executive scandals puts the average company stock loss at 4.1% when the CEO is the alleged offender.[3] For instance, another corporate scandal, involving the CEO of Intel, Brian Krzanich, recorded a loss of about 2% for Intel’s stock.[4] Following the exact same chain for other examples, companies like McDonald’s with Steve Easterbrook and Nestle with Laurent Freixe showed about the same in losses, with slightly more for McDonald’s and slightly less for Nestle. With Amazon that wasn’t exactly the case, because when Jeff Bezos’s affair with Lauren Sanchez surfaced in 2019, Amazon barely moved.[5]
Figure 2 Day-one moveTFR Markets
The market followed the script, until you subtract the market
Share price change on the first trading day after each scandal became public. Raw, Nvidia’s fall matched the 4.1% average. Measured against the chip index, which rose 6.9% that day, it was about 11 points: the largest in the set.
Raw moveAgainst the market
HPMark Hurd, 2010
-8.0%-8.5 pts
NvidiaJensen Huang, 2026
-4.3%-11.1 pts
Study average325 executive cases
-4.1%-4.1%
McDonald’sSteve Easterbrook, 2019
-2.7%-3.1 pts
IntelBrian Krzanich, 2018
-2.4%-1.7 pts
NestleLaurent Freixe, 2025
-0.7%0.0 pts
AmazonJeff Bezos, 2019
+0.2%-0.2 pts
024681012
Sources: Yahoo Finance daily closing prices for each share and its benchmark (S&P 500; Swiss Market Index for Nestle; PHLX Semiconductor index for Nvidia); Cline, Walkling and Yore, Journal of Financial Economics (2018). “Against the market” is the share’s move minus the benchmark’s, in percentage points. Kohl’s is left out because its shares rose on the day; see Figure 3. The scale is the size of the move; every bar is a fall except Amazon’s raw move.The Financier Review
And Bezos in this case is pretty similar to Huang - a CEO who is simply irreplaceable. Like Nvidia’s CEO, he was the founder that nobody could replace, therefore the board and shareholders had no option but to let him stay. But his extramarital affair with Sanchez had nothing to do with Amazon’s business. Huang’s affair is a potentially direct threat to national security, in case the allegations of Chinese espionage made against Huang Le turn out to be true. In terms of what we have as information, US intelligence reportedly believes that Alice Huang, or Huang Le, was recruited by China’s Ministry of State Security and deployed towards Jensen Huang to gather information about him and to influence his stance on selling Nvidia’s advanced AI chips to China.[6]
Nvidia · 2026 · Verdict pending
Jensen Huang and Alice Huang
The chief executive of Nvidia with the former Megaspeed executive whom US intelligence reportedly believes was working for Beijing. He has admitted an affair without naming her; she has not been charged.
Furthermore, Alice Huang was involved in a Singaporean company by the name of Megaspeed, which she helped run and which bought more than $4.8bn of Nvidia chips in two years.[6] Reports suggest that the company also rented the computing capacity to Alibaba.[7] The nearest such precedent was with Kohl’s, which fired its CEO last year for steering business to a partner[8], but where Huang’s case differs is that there was no corporate espionage involved at Kohl’s.
Figure 3 Pre-news close = 100TFR Markets
What the exit did to each share price
Share price indexed to 100 at the last close before the news, from 10 trading days before to 40 after, with the change in market value in dollars and the move against each company’s benchmark. The gold line is the news. Each line also carries everything else that happened to the company.
The affair touched the business. All five lost the job.
HP
Mark Hurd · Forced out, 6 August 2010
-12.2%-$13.2bn40 trading days on
Day one -$8.6bnAfter 40 days -$13.2bnWorth before $108bn
Against the S&P 500: day one -8.5 ptsafter 40 days -13.6 pts
Lowest point: down 17.9% after 15 trading days.
Intel
Brian Krzanich · Resigned, 21 June 2018
-11.8%-$29.3bn40 trading days on
Day one -$5.9bnAfter 40 days -$29.3bnWorth before $249bn
Against the S&P 500: day one -1.7 ptsafter 40 days -14.4 pts
The second drop, on 27 July, followed quarterly results.
McDonald’s
Steve Easterbrook · Fired, 3 November 2019
+1.9%+$2.8bn40 trading days on
Day one -$4.1bnAfter 40 days +$2.8bnWorth before $149bn
Against the S&P 500: day one -3.1 ptsafter 40 days -3.5 pts
The loss was recovered within three trading days.
Nestle
Laurent Freixe · Fired, 1 September 2025
+5.8%+$14.2bn40 trading days on
Day one -$1.8bnAfter 40 days +$14.2bnWorth before $243bn
Against the Swiss Market Index: day one 0.0 ptsafter 40 days +3.0 pts
The jump on 16 October followed the new chief executive’s first results and a plan to cut 16,000 jobs.
Kohl’s
Ashley Buchanan · Fired, 1 May 2025
+26.0%+$195m40 trading days on
Day one +$57mAfter 40 days +$195mWorth before $750m
Against the S&P 500: day one +7.0 ptsafter 40 days +15.1 pts
The shares rose on the day: a first-quarter outlook that beat expectations came in the same statement.
3 of 5, or 2
Forty trading days on, three of the five traded above their price before the news, but only two had beaten the market. McDonald’s was up 1.9% while the S&P 500 rose 5.3%. HP and Intel, the two that fell outright, were about $43bn lighter between them.
It did not. He stayed.
Amazon
Jeff Bezos · Affair public, 9 January 2019. Stayed.
-1.8%-$15.0bn40 trading days on
Day one +$1.4bnAfter 40 days -$15.0bnWorth before $810bn
Against the S&P 500: day one -0.2 ptsafter 40 days -8.6 pts
No visible reaction on the day.
Verdict pending. Two days of trading so far.
Nvidia
Jensen Huang · Affair admitted, 8 November 2026
-9.5%-$428bn2 trading days on
Day one -$192bnAfter 2 days -$428bnWorth before $4.50tn
Against the chip index: day one -11.1 ptsafter 2 days -16.0 pts
Two trading days in. The board’s verdict is still to come.
Sources: Yahoo Finance daily closing prices; market values before each event from the Associated Press, Yahoo Finance and 24/7 Wall St.; Kohl’s and Amazon values are The Financier Review estimates. Dollar changes are the percentage move applied to that value. “Against” figures are the share’s move minus the benchmark’s over the same days. Hover or drag across a chart to read any day.The Financier Review
Now onto the market: it is currently pricing two factors. One is the so-called key-man risk. In case Jensen Huang gets fired from Nvidia, the market is concerned with the future of the AI giant. For example, HP’s then CEO, Mark Hurd, made an exit which cost HP 8% in stock value in a day and $15bn in a fortnight.[9] Further, HP’s stock had still not recovered months later, and similarly Nvidia has no second man to inherit the chief’s seat at the AI giant. Huang also has no dual-class shield, and Yale governance expert Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is on the fence about his survival and gives him a 50-50 chance.[10] But as usual, funds have already voted on the matter: AMD stock rose 13% on Monday the 9th of November, while Nvidia’s fell.[11]
Figure 4 Share price change, %TFR Markets
The funds have already voted
Share price change on Monday 9 November 2026. The money left Nvidia and stayed inside the chip sector.
The other factor being priced right now is policy. Jensen Huang was Washington’s biggest and loudest opponent of chip bans on China. The Democrats, who won both chambers of Congress last week, with a sweeping victory, are now backing export restrictions in America’s defense bill.[12] Republicans, on the other hand, are desperately trying to cling to power and are threatening to subpoena Huang himself.[13] What this means for Nvidia is that a separate bill, which has already cleared the House, would, if it passes, ban Chinese firms from renting Nvidia servers abroad, which is exactly what Megaspeed is accused of enabling.[14]
As for what Beijing has to say: they deny everything. The foreign ministry called the claim a smear, and state media calls this story a witch hunt and a timed sabotage of Trump and Xi’s meeting next week.[15] As you can imagine, Megaspeed has denied diverting chips and nobody has been charged yet.[16]
So what do we have left standing from the facts? The affair is priced in by the financial market; the board’s verdict, expected in four to six weeks, is not.[17] If they decide to clear him, this is the story of Jeff Bezos again; remove him and we get Mark Hurd’s situation at 40x the size.
Figure 5 NVDA · Nasdaq · USDTFR Markets
What is priced, and what is not
Nvidia’s daily candles, its performance relative to the PHLX Semiconductor index, and volume. Until 9 November most of the fall was the sector. The relative line shows what belongs to Nvidia alone. Events 6 and 7 have not happened yet.
Last close, 11 Nov
Pre-market, 12 Nov
Since first report
Vs chip index
Volume, 11 Nov
Since first report6 weeks3 months
-21.6%Nvidia, 28 October to 10 November. About $1.12tn.
-14.4%The chip index over the same days.
-7.2 ptsWhat is left for Nvidia alone. About $370bn.
On the chart
1
29 OctoberThe New York Times reports the suspected spy link. Next day: -4.2%, against -7.2% for the chip index.
2
3 to 5 NovemberDemocrats win Congress and three House chairs ask Huang for a briefing. 5 November: -9.3%, less than the chip index’s -12.3%.
3
8 NovemberHuang admits the affair and the board opens an investigation. Monday: down 8.8% at the low, -4.3% at the close, or $192bn, while the chip index rose 6.9%.
4
10 NovemberShareholders sue and a subpoena is threatened. Tuesday: -5.5%, with the chip index down 0.4%.
5
11 November, after the closeA second relationship is reported and the board is said to be preparing to remove him. Thursday pre-market: -7.8%. See the update blocks.
Not yet priced
6
16 to 18 NovemberTrump and Xi meet at APEC. Nvidia reports earnings on the 17th. The House wants its briefing on the 18th.
7
Mid to late DecemberThe board’s verdict on its original timetable of four to six weeks. Wednesday’s reports suggest it may come sooner.
Sources: Yahoo Finance daily prices and volume to 11 November 2026; 24/7 Wall St. for the share count; CNBC; Bloomberg; Associated Press. The open diamond is the pre-market price at 7:16 a.m. in New York on 12 November. Hollow candles closed above their open; solid candles closed below. The relative line is Nvidia divided by the PHLX Semiconductor index, rebased to 28 October; Nvidia is itself a member of that index, which slightly understates the gap. Hover or drag across the chart to read any day.The Financier Review
Added todayThursday 12 November 2026 · prices as of 7:16 a.m. in New York, before the open
The market since the admission: Nvidia is 19 points behind its own sector
Wednesday looked like a recovery. Nvidia closed up 2.9%, but the chip index rose 5.7%, so it lost ground to its sector for a third session in a row. Then came the second report. In Thursday’s pre-market the shares were at $160.17, down 7.8% from Wednesday’s close.
Session by session
Session
Nvidia
Chip index
Gap
Monday 9After the admission
-4.3%
+6.9%
-11.1 pts
Tuesday 10Lawsuit, subpoena threat
-5.5%
-0.4%
-5.1 pts
Wednesday 11Before the second report
+2.9%
+5.7%
-2.8 pts
Thursday 12Pre-market, 7:16 a.m. New York
-7.8%
closed
n/a
Friday’s close to Wednesday’sThree full sessions
-6.9%
+12.5%
-19.4 pts
Friday’s close to Wednesday’s close
NvidiaPre-market today: -7.8%
-6.9%
AMDPre-market today: +2.6%
+23.1%
BroadcomPre-market today: +1.4%
+17.5%
Chip indexPHLX Semiconductor
+12.5%
IntelPre-market today: -2.1%
+11.1%
TSMCPre-market today: -2.4%
+10.1%
ASMLPre-market today: -1.2%
+7.7%
-100+10+20
$3.87tnNvidia’s market value at the pre-market price. It was $4.51tn at Friday’s close.
-$639bnLost since Friday’s close, of which $327bn since Wednesday’s.
-25.6%Nvidia since the eve of the first report on 28 October, at the pre-market price.
Source: Yahoo Finance, retrieved at 13:16 in Milan on 12 November 2026. Pre-market trading is thin and can differ from the opening price. The chip index does not trade before the open, so Thursday has no gap figure. Market value uses the share count implied by the reported $4.195tn at $173.73. Everything outside this block and the two other update blocks runs to Tuesday’s close.
§
Part II · The law
What We Know About the Nvidia Controversy and Its Potential Legal Consequences
Being targeted by espionage is one thing. Taking part in it is another.
By Boris Atanasov
Nvidia has become one of the most influential companies when it comes down to artificial intelligence; it is a semiconductor supplier to some of the world’s most advanced AI systems.
However, the recent reports concerning Huang’s alleged relationship with a businessperson with suspected connections to Chinese intelligence have put the company on the radar. Apparently, Nvidia’s board has initiated an independent investigation. At the same time, shareholders have brought legal proceedings alleging that information about the alleged relationship and its potential risks was hidden from them or withheld from them.[18]
It is important to note that the allegations remain unproven and no criminal conviction has been established against Huang. Therefore, we cannot talk about what the legal consequences will be for him, but rather underline potential legal outcomes, potential obstacles, and facts established after the investigation is finished.
With the information presented to us, we can analyze a few important questions from a legal perspective that may arise once all the evidence is present and the facts are established.
Figure 6TFR Law
Five routes, five different tests
The legal questions this part works through, from criminal law down to the boardroom. Each asks for something different, and none has been established.
The law
What must be shown
What follows
Criminal
Espionage Act
18 U.S.C. §§ 793-794
That national defense information was intentionally and deliberately transferred to a foreign government.
For Huang personally, consequences that could be severe.
Criminal
Economic Espionage Act of 1996
18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832
Trade-secret misappropriation, including conduct intended to benefit a foreign government.
Penalties under the Act.
Criminal and corporate
Export Control Reform Act of 2018
50 U.S.C. § 4819 and the Export Administration Regulations
That Nvidia’s products reached unauthorized Chinese recipients. For Huang, knowing participation in the transactions.
Financial penalties for Nvidia. For an individual, up to 20 years in prison.
Civil
Securities Exchange Act, Section 10(b)
15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5
A materially misleading statement, the required mental state, and a link between the conduct and investors’ losses.
Compensation, which a fall in the share price does not guarantee.
Corporate
Nvidia’s own governance
The board of directors
That the relationship influenced commercial decisions or compromised Nvidia’s interests.
Removal as chief executive, with no conviction needed.
Source: the analysis in Part II, summarised by The Financier Review. Statutes and cases as cited in the notes.The Financier Review
II.1Personal Controversy or Criminal Investigation
The main controversy is the possibility that Huang is being targeted by a foreign intelligence operation; in this case, the country we are talking about is China. I will put an emphasis on the word “targeted” - there is a big distinction between being targeted by espionage and participating in some form in it. American law is clear when it comes to pedantically examining an individual’s connection to economic misconduct, corruption, and espionage (see article “The Magnitsky Law”).
If Huang is found to have only maintained a personal relationship with the individual suspected of foreign intelligence activities, this won’t constitute a criminal offence, simple as that. Therefore, prosecutors would need to establish that Huang knew about the alleged connections of the Chinese businesswoman Alice Huang and engaged in conduct prohibited by federal law. The Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C., Sections 793-794, outlines and criminalizes certain unauthorized activities, for instance, misconduct involving national defense information.[19] If protected information was intentionally and deliberately transferred to a foreign government under circumstances satisfying the statute, the consequences could be severe.
However, not all types of information can be qualified as national defense information; confidential data of Nvidia may fall under another type of legislation, trade-secret legislation. Another law relevant to the matter is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. It provides penalties for certain forms of trade-secret misappropriation, including conduct intended to benefit foreign governments.[20] For Huang, the evidence is important. If information that satisfies the requirements under the Espionage Act was transferred to a foreign government, he may be held responsible. Obviously, everything depends on the evidence. Furthermore, one thing should be clear - being deceived by an intelligence operative is not equivalent to knowingly assisting one.
II.2What Happens with Nvidia’s Semiconductor Exports?
Having mentioned all the allegations surrounding Huang’s personal conduct, let’s see what will happen with the international distribution of Nvidia’s semiconductors. The United States, especially in the last few years, has established legal reforms when it comes to the export of advanced artificial intelligence technology.
Under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and the Export Administration Regulations, specific semiconductor transactions require government authorization.[21] If investigators were to establish that Nvidia’s products reached unauthorized Chinese subjects, the legal consequences could be huge, and the most realistic one would be to challenge the whole company in a federal court. Yet, analogically, as I mentioned in the previous point, the discovery of an unlawful shipment most definitely would not make Nvidia’s CEO criminally responsible. The prosecutors handling the case will have to find clear evidence to support the argument that Huang’s company is exporting its production to unauthorized Chinese recipients.
If found responsible in this matter, Nvidia can face significant financial penalties because of corporate violations, while for Huang personally, the consequences can become serious. If evidence is demonstrated of knowing participation in unlawful transactions, Huang can face up to 20 years of imprisonment.[22]
50 U.S.C. § 4819Penalties
“(2) in the case of the individual, shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.”* - Look at the endnote.
Because Nvidia is part of a global supply chain and has access to foreign markets, the company can face greater financial penalties.
II.3Could Shareholders Hold Huang Responsible?
Investors have reportedly accused Nvidia and Huang of failing to disclose information that is relevant to the company’s exposure to national security risks[18]. The main problem is whether the information allegedly withheld was important enough to influence an investor’s decision.
Under American law, this is known as materiality. The United States Supreme Court established something very interesting - information is considered material when a potential investor considers it important in making an investment decision.[23]
Of course, that does not mean that corporate executives must show every aspect of their personal lives; an extramarital relationship does not necessarily mean a matter of securities regulation. Only if personal relationships create a commercial conflict or national security concern may the situation become legally relevant. Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits specified misleading conduct in connection with securities transactions.[24]
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
Additionally, showing that a controversy affected the company’s share price is not enough. It is also necessary for investors to prove the required elements of securities fraud:
aA materially misleading statement.
bThe required mental state.
cThe nexus between the alleged misconduct and their financial losses.
As the Supreme Court clarified through its practice, a decline in market value does not mean guaranteed recoverable damages. Therefore, even Nvidia’s market downfall would not necessarily mean compensation for shareholders.
II.4One Final Conclusion: Can Jensen Huang Lose Control of Nvidia?
With the case of Nvidia happening at this moment, we can conclude one thing - there is a growing interaction between private corporate activity and national security.
The most important question is whether Huang can lose control and the authority to manage the company. Huang founded the company and is undeniably closely associated with its success, but his executive position is subject to the company’s governance structure. If the investigations establish that the personal relationship influenced commercial decisions or compromised Nvidia’s interests, there is a high possibility that he could lose control and responsibilities. The board would need to examine whether the conduct affected the corporation and whether governance regulations were violated.
The answer is simple - yes, Huang could potentially be removed as CEO without being convicted of any crime. Whether he will be found guilty of participating in misconduct benefiting a foreign government, we are about to find out.
StaysGoes
Part III · Opinion
Can Jensen Huang Survive His Self-Sabotage?
The scale tips his way, but not by as much as Wall Street thinks.
By Mihail Gaydarov
As a disclaimer, this section is entirely opinion, based on reasonable deductions from industry experts, and contains no certain predictions. Having explored many similar situations, our guess would be that in the short run he would be able to survive. Nvidia’s board, which launched the internal investigation, has already said it sees no sign that security or proprietary information was compromised and, by implication, it simply has nobody to replace the legendary Jensen Huang with.[16] Nvidia’s CFO, Colette Kress, is viewed as an interim option at the very best.[25] Also, it is important to note here that Jensen Huang is the largest individual shareholder in the company, at about 3.5% ownership of Nvidia.[26] Further, President Donald J. Trump has publicly told the press that he is on Huang’s side.[13] So it would be safe to assume that the board won’t fire a founder into a vacuum while $4.5tn in valuation rests on him.
But the precedents argue the other way around. Every CEO whose private affair even remotely affected the business lost his job. In our case that would be Hurd, Krzanich, Easterbrook, Freixe and Buchanan. What we believe is that Bezos survived the scrutiny because his affair was purely personal. Huang’s partner was linked to a customer that spent more than $4.8bn with his company, which puts him in the first group.
HP · 2010 · Forced out
Mark Hurd
Chief executive of HP. Gone within weeks of a contractor’s complaint. The shares fell 8% in a day and were 12% lower forty trading days on.
Nestle · 2025 · Fired
Laurent Freixe
Chief executive of Nestle. Dismissed over an undisclosed relationship with a direct subordinate, after first denying it to his board.
What finishes the CEO isn’t the affair itself but the cover story - more than anything. Laurent Freixe, Nestle’s ex-CEO, was fired after at first denying the relationship to his board.[27] McDonald’s clawed back Easterbrook’s pay because he had lied.[28] Just last month Jensen Huang described his dealings with Alice Huang as normal Megaspeed business.[29] Then, two weeks later, he admitted to being unfaithful to his wife - the exact conditions on which shareholder class actions are built.[30]
In my role as Chief Financial Analyst, I put the chance of him still being Nvidia's CEO in a year at 60%, significantly below Wall Street’s 85% figure.[1] Truthfully, the most likely scenario is that we see a diminished Huang. What we believe will happen is that he will be cleared of leaking anything, kept in his position, but with a named successor beside him. Compliance will be taken out of his hands and his role as Nvidia’s voice on China will be finished. Even if the board spares him, Washington will be the harder test, with Democrats set to control both chambers of Congress from January.[14]
Figure 7TFR Analysis
Three estimates of the same chair
The chance that Jensen Huang keeps his job, as judged by three observers. The green needle is The Financier Review’s. It is a judgement built on the precedents in this article, not the output of a model.
60%The Financier Review
Jeffrey SonnenfeldYale School of Management
Stays 50%
Goes 50%
The Financier ReviewStill chief executive in a year
Stays 60%
Goes 40%
Wall StreetAs estimated by Dan Ives
Stays 85%
15%
The gap between this article and the Street is 25 points.
Sources: 24/7 Wall St.; Yahoo Finance; The Financier Review. The 60% figure is the author’s own judgement.The Financier Review
Update to our forecastThursday 12 November 2026
After the second allegation, we cut our estimate from 60% to 20%
60%→20%
Chance he is still chief executive in a year
1
This is the kind of affair boards act on. A relationship with a direct report is what ended Krzanich at Intel, Easterbrook at McDonald’s and Freixe at Nestle. It needs no spy and no proof that anything reached Beijing.
2
It reopens the cover story. Sunday’s memo admitted one affair. If the new report is accurate, that admission was incomplete, which is the third tripwire below: a finding that he misled his own board.
3
The board has moved. On Sunday it expressed confidence in him. By Wednesday night it was reportedly meeting to discuss his removal.
=
Why it is not lower. The report is unconfirmed, no decision has been announced and there is still no successor. Analysts quoted by CNBC say the shares could fall a further 20% if he is removed, which gives directors a reason to keep the founder in some role.
Part I argued that the affair was priced and the board’s verdict was not. As of Thursday morning, the verdict is being priced.
The 20% figure is The Financier Review’s own judgement. Sources: The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, as reported by CNBC, Axios, Forbes and The Hill, 11 and 12 November 2026.
Lastly, we have identified three things that might flip the situation:
Three tripwires
Any one of them ends it.
1
Evidence that information has actually reached Beijing.
Unlikely, the reason being that it is difficult to prove and would imply that the US has been undermining itself in the AI race.
Unlikely
UnlikelyLikely
2
Proof that he knew Megaspeed’s chips were going to China.
Relatively unlikely, again difficult to prove.
Relatively unlikely
UnlikelyLikely
3
A finding that he misled his own board.
Likely: if evidence exists, board members will probably not hide it, considering the magnitude of the conflict.
Likely
UnlikelyLikely
In the end, any of these would turn the situation into Mark Hurd’s exit.
How we measured it
Method, limits and what we did not remove
Day oneThe first trading session to close after the news became public, measured from the last close before it. For Nvidia that is Monday 9 November, the session after Huang’s admission. The story first broke on 29 October, which Figure 5 covers.
WindowsFigure 3 uses one window for every company: 10 trading days before the news to 40 after. Nvidia has only two sessions so far.
BenchmarksS&P 500 for the US companies, the Swiss Market Index for Nestle and the PHLX Semiconductor index for Nvidia. “Against the market” is the share’s return minus the benchmark’s, in percentage points. It is a simple difference, not a beta-adjusted model.
Dollar figuresThe percentage move applied to the company’s market value at the last close before the news. They are approximations. The values for Kohl’s (about $0.75bn) and Amazon (about $810bn) are our own estimates.
Not removedOther company news inside the windows still moves the lines: Intel’s results on 27 July 2018, Nestle’s job cuts on 16 October 2025 and Kohl’s outlook on 1 May 2025. With seven cases, this is a comparison, not a statistical test.
The forecastThe survival estimates in Part III are editorial judgement, reasoned from the precedents and the reporting. They are not model outputs and should be read as opinion.
Notes on the Record
30 sources, numbered as they appear
AllPart IPart IIPart III
1
24/7 Wall St., 10 November 2026. Monday close of $178.67, about $192bn of market value lost, and analyst Dan Ives on an 85% chance that Huang stays.
Yahoo Finance, daily closing prices for HPQ, INTC, MCD, NESN.SW, KSS, AMZN and NVDA. Percentage and dollar moves are The Financier Review calculations.
Al Jazeera, “Why is Nvidia’s Jensen Huang at the centre of a US-China spy scandal?”, 9 November 2026. The board’s statement and the absence of charges.
18 U.S.C. §§ 793-794, Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information; Gathering or Delivering Defense Information to Aid Foreign Government; and 50 U.S.C. § 421, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Bloomberg via Business Standard, “Geopolitics takes Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s affair scandal to a new level”, 10 November 2026. The McDonald’s clawback.
Special report. Market figures are as of the close on Tuesday 10 November 2026 unless a figure says otherwise. This article is analysis and opinion. It is not investment advice and it is not legal advice. The allegations it discusses are unproven.
Written by
Mihail Gaydarov
Founder, Managing Partner and Chief Financial Analyst
