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".
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.)
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.
The basis of them stating this is the lack of a check for a formal 10b5-1 plan.
There are a variety of other ways that he could schedule triggered sales that aren't immediately transparent to the media.
A lack of 10b5-1 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.
There are defined "open windows" he can sell, and these were sold in those permitted window.
It was also multiple batches over months.
He gave form 144 notice and portions were through trusts and charitable / foundation.
He filed multiple Form 144s notifying the SEC of proposed sales under Rule 144. Notable examples include a September 2026 notice for up to 5 million shares (roughly $1.09 billion) and earlier notices (e.g., involving 1.7 million shares in June 2026).
He's got this exact same pattern of behavior for the last 43 sales dating back to 2021.. it's the furthest that I left before I stopped.
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.
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...
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 (Lutnick), 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. Leaking the Alice story to the media to take Jensen out was crossing a pretty big line. Ultimately, I think the root cause was Trump's constant waffling leaving a major foreign policy issue unresolved for over a year causing the factions to continue arguing and escalating. Lutnick was on the losing side and, per the WSJ yesterday, now "fighting to keep his job" because the Commerce Dept has been refusing to add Megaspeed to the blocked Entities List for over a year (which they could do at any time with no justification required). That means the U.S. government allowed NVidia to keep selling cards to Megaspeed and Megaspeed affiliates on purpose.
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.
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
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.
They can influence timing of information release; Whether delaying or expediting.
Just pointing out that even with the notice there is still room for shenanigans.
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".
I feel like the easiest and most likely explanation is that he's just aware how massively overvalued it currently is.
Frankly I'm surprised he still has as much given it's valuation
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.)
Aug 31 is about when the post-earnings window opened so could be routine?
1B worth is NOT routine
1B is the numerator.
Think about what the denominator might be.
He sold ~%15 of his holdings.
If you had 7 bil usd in one stock wouldn't you feel it was prudent to diversify at least that amount of it or would you keep it in that single stock?
Characterizing ~10 weeks to "weeks" is also a bit misleading
Exactly. Put "2.5 months" in the headline and no one bats an eye.
I'm more interested in options activity leading up to this.
... that's not all that much stock given the price rise. I don't think they anticipated their stock packages would be worth as much as they are.
See also https://nvidia.cool.computer/
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.
Do better yahoo news!
The article does talk about that 90 day thing:
> 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.
The basis of them stating this is the lack of a check for a formal 10b5-1 plan.
There are a variety of other ways that he could schedule triggered sales that aren't immediately transparent to the media.
A lack of 10b5-1 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.
There are defined "open windows" he can sell, and these were sold in those permitted window.
It was also multiple batches over months.
He gave form 144 notice and portions were through trusts and charitable / foundation.
He filed multiple Form 144s notifying the SEC of proposed sales under Rule 144. Notable examples include a September 2026 notice for up to 5 million shares (roughly $1.09 billion) and earlier notices (e.g., involving 1.7 million shares in June 2026).
He's got this exact same pattern of behavior for the last 43 sales dating back to 2021.. it's the furthest that I left before I stopped.
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.
And example of the commenters here who don't know even the most basic things about US economics.
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...
> Rubio and Bessent or their teams.
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 (Lutnick), 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. Leaking the Alice story to the media to take Jensen out was crossing a pretty big line. Ultimately, I think the root cause was Trump's constant waffling leaving a major foreign policy issue unresolved for over a year causing the factions to continue arguing and escalating. Lutnick was on the losing side and, per the WSJ yesterday, now "fighting to keep his job" because the Commerce Dept has been refusing to add Megaspeed to the blocked Entities List for over a year (which they could do at any time with no justification required). That means the U.S. government allowed NVidia to keep selling cards to Megaspeed and Megaspeed affiliates on purpose.
> AI industry
Except for OpenAI and Anthropic...
I'm having flashbacks to my friend trying to describe the Syndicate game to me in the 90s
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.
it was in the NYT over a year ago (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/09/technology/nvidia-chips-c...)
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
There's no meaningful enforcement of white collar crime in the us. I wonder when these headlines will stop being written.
The lack of enforcement is an issue but the outright graft by the administration, whilst pardoning and protecting is worse.
You want white collar crime to be enforced?
So did the disgusting immoral Ro Khanna.
Wow, Ro Khanna sold $1B in nVidia stock?
It appears that you are easily fooled by weak evidence.