Nothing out of the ordinary. Guy sold 4m shares over a few months (all of which have to be pre-announced 90 days in advance). Still has over 25m shares.
We can throw down "could" all over the place, anywhere, on any topic. Doesn't help the convo, I feel. Can people with leverage use it for ill gains? Definitely. But we can get religious about that so easily and should be careful. I think our discussion here is best served by going on what we know. But I very much agree Nvidia isn't some stalwart defender of clean practices.
I know you might respond "we know they have done iffy shit before, therefore worst interpretation is warranted here."
But, well, as I said - we can do that line of reasoning about anything, but our discussions kind of break down at that point - we're just throwing down impressions and "could be's" at that point.
The article says there were no trading plans used, so it's not clear to me whether selling was announced 90 days in advance. Where would I find the announcement?
It's generally considered unwise for executives to sell any shares at all except according to a preannounced 10b5-1 plan, but it's not required and he doesn't seem to have done so here. (You're right, of course, that there a lot of legitimate reasons he might have wanted to diversify 20% of his shares without waiting 90 days.)
He invested back in 1993, so the recent astronomical rise in stock price probably made it much bigger a part of his portfolio than it was before. He's worth about 10, and this is probably why he was selling a billion - to diversify...
None of these executive can sell company stock on a whim. They are “insiders” and if they want to sell they have to schedule it a year plus out in advance.
Yet another example of the media failing to do the most basic research into the topic they report on.
> In Stevens's case, he didn't have such a trading plan, but that's not necessarily a red flag on its own.
Sounds like it’s not necessarily required and wasn’t followed here?
The format of the article makes it seem like it ends because it has a list of links to other articles but then it continues on. Confusing formatting for sure. And I’m not sure I understood it correctly.
It wasn't under a 10b5-1 plan, but in a large company like Nvidia there is zero chance the guy didn't go through a strict compliance process to document his preplan sales.
When I sold company stock (no where near a board director) there were so many hoops jump through and blackout period (even without seeing insider info) there were only small period you could actually trade.
The idea a board director, who is under an SEC microscope, didn't check all the boxes is just silly. Without an 10b5-1 plan (which provides an affirmative defenese), he has to prove his own innocence. Even without insider trading he's at risk of being convicted because someone didn't like his trades.
Compliance is against publicly known and formally acknowledged facts. This whole huang affairs thing could have been known weeks in advance but not be formally acknowledged. Compliance measures usually do nothing and only serve as a cover to make the argument that you just made.
That's my point. You're making bold claims with zero evidence. You seem to think because compliance processes isn't public, it's not happening or it's a smokescreen.
> and if they want to sell they have to schedule it a year plus out in advance.
No. That isn't the standard they are actually required to meet.
In this case, trading shortly after earnings is generally considered to be fine because at that time, investors have most of the same information the executives and board do. It isn't a guarantee and they can use trading plans to be really safe, but it is traditionally allowed.
The administration is trying to find who leaked this to the NY Times originally, which was a form of leaking classified information. Its obvious the recent market correct was kicked off by insider trading like this.
Oddly enough there are two main suspects, Rubio and Bessent or their teams. Bessent has more of a motivation to leak the story so the export controls would have to be enforced. If it turns out to have been traced back to the Treasury dept, the Treasury Secretary days in office are almost up.
Also, why would he be so motivated to leak it? Lower Treasury yields...
the subtlety is that this was knowledge to the US Admin a year ago. reasonably, nvidia adopts the posture that it will sell as many chips as possible to all comers. if the USG blacklisted a company, they would stop immediately
now it emerges that factions within the gov either through malice or negligence or any other reason did not sanction the chinese shell company a full year after it was in the NYT. easy to blame on WH but just as much capitol hill boomer incoherence
jensen is collateral damage of a power struggle between other factions. thats why it was such a surprise for him and the only person really standing up for him is david sacks. tide went out on the midterms
Just widening the suspect list a bit, per WSJ reporting, the two opposing factions are:
China AI Hawks: State (Rubio), Defense (Hegseth), Treasury (Bessent) Depts
vs
China AI Trade Pragmatists: Commerce Dept, White House trading desks, advisors and AI industry.
Jensen was the wildcard who'd been effective in reaching Trump and swaying him at the last minute multiple times. Back in May Rubio attempted to neuter Jensen's influence by briefing Trump on the intelligence that Jensen was banging a suspected Chinese asset, but Trump shrugged it off and kept Jensen involved.
The timing of the leak of this old info to publicly damage Jensen was likely the U.S. / China summit coming up in Shenzen on the 18th and 19th. That's where the current B200 chip export waiver extension will be either re-negotiated or not negotiated (the waiver expires in January). The Hawks want to let the waiver expire and are unwilling to negotiate it no matter what's offered. The Pragmatists want to offer a B200 waiver extension in exchange for high-value goals like rare earths, Iran and/or trade concessions. This has been an escalating battle inside the administration for well over a year. Also: this isn't a clear red / blue issue. There are congress members of both parties on each side.
One idea for Bessent is that he wants lower 10 year treasury yields and deflating AI bubble can help flow money back into treasuries. For example popping AI bubble will make investment into AI seem much more risky so debt market may park cash in treasuries, also crashing equities can make equity investors also seek safer havens such as treasuries which will lower the 10 year.
But the shorting guys Culper had published pretty much all of this detail from their research & investigation, some 6 months before the NYT report. I saw the link in another HN thread.
56 comments
[ 0.14 ms ] story [ 20.9 ms ] threadThink about what the denominator might be.
Just pointing out that even with the notice there is still room for shenanigans.
I know you might respond "we know they have done iffy shit before, therefore worst interpretation is warranted here."
But, well, as I said - we can do that line of reasoning about anything, but our discussions kind of break down at that point - we're just throwing down impressions and "could be's" at that point.
Frankly I'm surprised he still has as much given it's valuation
Media wants every ounce of information to shift narrative and take down Nvidia. It is worth asking again, who is benefiting from all this ?
Honestly this doesn't seem out of the ordinary.
Yet another example of the media failing to do the most basic research into the topic they report on.
Do better yahoo news!
> In Stevens's case, he didn't have such a trading plan, but that's not necessarily a red flag on its own.
Sounds like it’s not necessarily required and wasn’t followed here?
The format of the article makes it seem like it ends because it has a list of links to other articles but then it continues on. Confusing formatting for sure. And I’m not sure I understood it correctly.
When I sold company stock (no where near a board director) there were so many hoops jump through and blackout period (even without seeing insider info) there were only small period you could actually trade.
The idea a board director, who is under an SEC microscope, didn't check all the boxes is just silly. Without an 10b5-1 plan (which provides an affirmative defenese), he has to prove his own innocence. Even without insider trading he's at risk of being convicted because someone didn't like his trades.
Just because youre not aware of what happens behind closed doors doesn’t mean nothing is happening behind closed doors.
There are a variety of other ways that he could schedule triggered sales that aren't immediately transparent to the media.
A lack of 10v5-1 does not directly correlate to not having any pre scheduled plan.
The fact that they're acquitting months to weeks, makes me feel like they're inventing news to throw on the pile of Nvidia headlines.
> They are “insiders”
Yes.
> and if they want to sell they have to schedule it a year plus out in advance.
No. That isn't the standard they are actually required to meet.
In this case, trading shortly after earnings is generally considered to be fine because at that time, investors have most of the same information the executives and board do. It isn't a guarantee and they can use trading plans to be really safe, but it is traditionally allowed.
Trading shortly after earning but right before a major scandal that tanks the stock is going to open him up to SEC breathing down his neck.
> No. That isn't the standard they are actually required to meet.
Ok, it's not a requirement, but it's a safe horbor that protects the insider. Most people use it because it's risky not to.
Which is my point. The guy is an idiot if he didn't cross his t's and dot his i's on this trade since it's flashing red for some SEC worker.
Oddly enough there are two main suspects, Rubio and Bessent or their teams. Bessent has more of a motivation to leak the story so the export controls would have to be enforced. If it turns out to have been traced back to the Treasury dept, the Treasury Secretary days in office are almost up.
Also, why would he be so motivated to leak it? Lower Treasury yields...
the subtlety is that this was knowledge to the US Admin a year ago. reasonably, nvidia adopts the posture that it will sell as many chips as possible to all comers. if the USG blacklisted a company, they would stop immediately
now it emerges that factions within the gov either through malice or negligence or any other reason did not sanction the chinese shell company a full year after it was in the NYT. easy to blame on WH but just as much capitol hill boomer incoherence
jensen is collateral damage of a power struggle between other factions. thats why it was such a surprise for him and the only person really standing up for him is david sacks. tide went out on the midterms
Just widening the suspect list a bit, per WSJ reporting, the two opposing factions are:
China AI Hawks: State (Rubio), Defense (Hegseth), Treasury (Bessent) Depts
vs
China AI Trade Pragmatists: Commerce Dept, White House trading desks, advisors and AI industry.
Jensen was the wildcard who'd been effective in reaching Trump and swaying him at the last minute multiple times. Back in May Rubio attempted to neuter Jensen's influence by briefing Trump on the intelligence that Jensen was banging a suspected Chinese asset, but Trump shrugged it off and kept Jensen involved.
The timing of the leak of this old info to publicly damage Jensen was likely the U.S. / China summit coming up in Shenzen on the 18th and 19th. That's where the current B200 chip export waiver extension will be either re-negotiated or not negotiated (the waiver expires in January). The Hawks want to let the waiver expire and are unwilling to negotiate it no matter what's offered. The Pragmatists want to offer a B200 waiver extension in exchange for high-value goals like rare earths, Iran and/or trade concessions. This has been an escalating battle inside the administration for well over a year. Also: this isn't a clear red / blue issue. There are congress members of both parties on each side.
Except for OpenAI and Anthropic...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/nov/13/trump-nvidia...