Yes, 40% is pretty high in the abstract. But a 60% chance of getting removed is insanely high compared to the base rate for this concrete case! Before this news broke, what were the odds of Huang not being a CEO of Nvidia a year from now for any reason. I'd definitely have taken the under at 1%, and the over maybe at 0.1%?
Like, what other risks were on the horizon? Him getting bored or tired? Not that man. A terminal illness that was diagnosed too late to treat? That happens very rarely for the ultra rich with their access to infinite high quality health care. A freak accident, e.g. airplane crash? Possible, but the rates are <<1%. Targeted violence? Unlikely, Nvidia is too far removed to be hated that strongly by anyone. The board firing him for some other reason? It'd have to be something that can't be papered over with hush money (e.g. any standard sex scandal almost certainly could; it's only the national security aspects that make it impossible here). A hostile takeover or similar that leads to him being ousted? Logistically and financially impossible.
Going from so rare it's not worth planning for to even odds is a pretty darn big shift from a single event!
It's very low for a CYA exercise.
Boards don't independently investigate their CEOs as a matter of routine or to cover their asses. That's what an independent investigation by outside counsel is for. The Board taking the reins on this is absolutely substantial to anyone who understands how corporate Boards work.
Another way to put this is "Do you feel comfortable shorting NVDA tomorrow morning based on this news?" Because if Huang is removed it's very likely they will face challenges finding and reacting the next big use-case for GPUs, not to mention capitalizing on AI (which already is seeming shaky for other reasons). If you're completely confident that this will result in his removal, it seems like there's easy money to be made here.
Personally I don't feel comfortable enough to put my money where my mouth is. I'd give it even odds, but even odds, to me, is not enough to say it'll go one way or another.
Huang has done a fine job managing NVidia, but he's also the poster child for "better lucky than good."
It's not like he led NVidia out of dire straits to pivot into the cryptocurrency/blockchain, and then AI, bubbles. They were making hardware for computer graphics, and that just so happened to be the same foundational hardware for the two biggest technology bubbles of the 21st century, twice in a row.
I find it hard to believe NVidia's incredible success can be attributed exclusively to him. Sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time.
It’s a bit like when you watch a fantastic FPS player play, they just always seem to be in the right place to catch the other guy off guard.
Huang didn’t know exactly what was coming - but he knew enough and managed to put NV into a position where it could quickly exploit whatever did emerge.
If I ever hit a home run in baseball, it would be blind luck. If I did it twice, nah, that would be incredibly unlikely, as I have zero talent at any ball sports.
Gates, Jobs, and Musk - each had a home run 3 times. That is so unlikely to be happenstance, ya gotta admit they had talent.
If you look at the evolution of GPGPU computing, at least from an HPC perspective, CUDA is almost an obvious step. What’s perplexing is that AMD and Intel let it get so far ahead in the late 2000s and early 2010s.
This is a silly way to read corporate governance. There exist finer levers for tuning up and down exposure than going long or short.
> If you're completely confident that this will result in his removal
Straw man. Nobody argued this.
What's being argued is that the top comment's implication–that this is par for the course–is bullshit. The Board is signaling a partial loss of confidence in their CEO. There is also substantial risk, though no assurance, that Jensen will step down.
> I'd give it even odds
That's what about 50% chances mean.