There are 100 different ways that the CEO falling victim to an espionage plot could impact the business.
> I, as a shareholder, do not care if the CEO is having an affair so long as the business is not affected. If you can establish the latter, then his personal conduct is between him and his partner.
If you read the second sentence then you and I agree. I care if the business is affected, I don't if it is not and then the rest of this is a personal matter that doesn't need to be a news story because it is gossip.
This is actually a pretty challenging standard, because the moment the CEO tries to gaslight their spouse/partner that it's not an affair, they are already at risk of bringing the company into a deception: working late is almost always the cover, for one thing. But at that moment you have a substantially compromised person as a CEO.
This might seem a silly place to draw the line, but consider what the escalations are — the CEO's PA being asked to mislead the spouse, inventing a meeting they were at, inventing an away trip, etc. etc.; they always mount up. There is no executive who has an affair who doesn't pretend they are at work, and there's no pretence that doesn't ultimately put an employee in a difficult position.
It's entirely reasonable for a board to say that if the CEO or the chairman is having an affair it is their business.
And this is before you even consider that the affair is ordinarily likely to be with an employee.
Now, if a CEO at Huang's level of geopolitical importance is having an affair with anyone, it's the government's business, and the shareholders', because it makes them a (local and international, commercial and state-level) blackmail and espionage target even if they are not literally boffing a spy, which in this case he evidently is.
So yeah, it matters.
This is really naive. And I bet other people could do other questionable things that you'd consider to color their entire character and render them untrustworthy.
It is bad for business. Thats all. Him doing this is bad for Nvidia and bad for shareholders.
Cheating shareholders, esp large ones is a big no no since there are real consequences for CEOs engaging in such behaviour.
There's no indication that there's nonconsent involved, nor any actual espionage. this is a way to impress upon someone a set of moral code that is arbitrary and capricious with extreme social coercion. To judge by that standard is pretty close to the anti-gay hysteria of the McCarthyist era. Enough is enough.
And it's not like "McCarthyists" invented the concept of adultery being bad. Almost every major culture developed the concept independently. The Abrahamic religions, Chinese confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism had little contact with each other 2,000 years ago, but all developed the notion of adultery as a major moral transgression.