Jensen Huang owned 870 million Nvidia shares: Why that wasn't enough to control the board
Jensen Huang's exit from Nvidia after 33 years highlights the limits of founder control, despite his ownership of 870 million shares. With just a 3.6% stake and no special voting rights, Huang lacked the power to override the company's board.
- Nov 14, 2026,
- Updated Nov 14, 2026 3:35 AM IST
Jensen Huang may have co-founded Nvidia and led it for 33 years, but his substantial shareholding did not give him absolute control over the company. His reported resignation on November 12 highlights a crucial distinction in corporate governance: owning billions of dollars worth of shares does not necessarily translate into the power to override a company's board.
Huang held approximately 870 million Nvidia shares, representing around 3.6% of the company. Of these, nearly 800 million shares were held through trusts co-owned with his wife, while approximately 70 million shares were owned directly.
Despite his significant financial stake, Huang did not possess special super-voting shares, which allow founders at some technology companies to exercise disproportionate voting power.
Why couldn't Huang control Nvidia's board?
Under Nvidia's ordinary shareholding structure, Huang's 3.6% ownership did not provide sufficient voting power to independently determine board decisions.
Unlike companies where founders retain control through dual-class share structures, Huang's influence largely came from his leadership, technical vision and reputation rather than enhanced voting rights.
Consequently, Nvidia's directors retained authority over executive leadership decisions, including the appointment or removal of the CEO.
His departure followed reports that the board was considering his removal amid allegations concerning his personal relationships and potential national-security implications. An independent investigation into the intelligence-related allegations remains ongoing, with no findings announced.
Why is Nvidia's leadership transition different?
According to CNBC, corporate governance experts believe Huang's sudden departure presents challenges beyond those typically associated with founder succession.
“I’m not sure we’ve seen a situation quite like this, where the founder and CEO of one of the world’s largest companies faces such a sudden departure amid scandal,” Michael Withers, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business, told CNBC.
Huang reportedly had around 60 direct reports, reflecting a relatively flat management structure designed to accelerate communication and decision-making.
Withers also questioned whether Nvidia had an adequately developed succession plan.
How does Nvidia compare with Apple and Google?
Apple faced a major leadership transition when co-founder Steve Jobs stepped down in 2011. However, unlike Nvidia, Apple had already experienced changes in leadership, and Tim Cook was a well-prepared internal successor. Cook, known for his operational expertise and supply-chain management, subsequently expanded Apple's services business and strengthened its chip strategy. During his 15-year tenure, Apple's market capitalisation increased from approximately $350 billion to $4 trillion, according to CNBC.
Similarly, Google's co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin stepped away from executive responsibilities at Alphabet in 2019, more than two decades after establishing the company. Their departure was planned, with Sundar Pichai assuming leadership. Alphabet shares have gained more than 300% since that transition, CNBC reported.
Uber offers another comparison. Co-founder Travis Kalanick resigned as CEO in 2017 following months of controversy and corporate governance concerns. His successor, Dara Khosrowshahi, subsequently focused on restructuring the company and improving profitability.
Nvidia's situation is different because Huang's departure was sudden, and he remained deeply involved in the company's strategy, operations and public identity. His leadership helped transform Nvidia from a graphics chipmaker into a dominant supplier of artificial intelligence infrastructure.
Michael Withers, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame, told CNBC that Nvidia's transition appeared particularly challenging because the company did not seem to have a clearly established succession plan.
CFO Colette Kress has taken over as interim CEO while the board searches for a permanent replacement. However, replacing Huang's technical expertise, industry relationships and leadership style could prove difficult.
For investors, the episode highlights an important corporate governance lesson: founder influence, financial ownership and voting control are not the same. Even a substantial shareholding cannot guarantee control over leadership decisions when the board retains the authority to appoint or remove executives.
For Unparalleled coverage of India's Businesses and Economy – Subscribe to Business Today Magazine
Jensen Huang may have co-founded Nvidia and led it for 33 years, but his substantial shareholding did not give him absolute control over the company. His reported resignation on November 12 highlights a crucial distinction in corporate governance: owning billions of dollars worth of shares does not necessarily translate into the power to override a company's board.
Huang held approximately 870 million Nvidia shares, representing around 3.6% of the company. Of these, nearly 800 million shares were held through trusts co-owned with his wife, while approximately 70 million shares were owned directly.
Despite his significant financial stake, Huang did not possess special super-voting shares, which allow founders at some technology companies to exercise disproportionate voting power.
Why couldn't Huang control Nvidia's board?
Under Nvidia's ordinary shareholding structure, Huang's 3.6% ownership did not provide sufficient voting power to independently determine board decisions.
Unlike companies where founders retain control through dual-class share structures, Huang's influence largely came from his leadership, technical vision and reputation rather than enhanced voting rights.
Consequently, Nvidia's directors retained authority over executive leadership decisions, including the appointment or removal of the CEO.
His departure followed reports that the board was considering his removal amid allegations concerning his personal relationships and potential national-security implications. An independent investigation into the intelligence-related allegations remains ongoing, with no findings announced.
Why is Nvidia's leadership transition different?
According to CNBC, corporate governance experts believe Huang's sudden departure presents challenges beyond those typically associated with founder succession.
“I’m not sure we’ve seen a situation quite like this, where the founder and CEO of one of the world’s largest companies faces such a sudden departure amid scandal,” Michael Withers, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business, told CNBC.
Huang reportedly had around 60 direct reports, reflecting a relatively flat management structure designed to accelerate communication and decision-making.
Withers also questioned whether Nvidia had an adequately developed succession plan.
How does Nvidia compare with Apple and Google?
Apple faced a major leadership transition when co-founder Steve Jobs stepped down in 2011. However, unlike Nvidia, Apple had already experienced changes in leadership, and Tim Cook was a well-prepared internal successor. Cook, known for his operational expertise and supply-chain management, subsequently expanded Apple's services business and strengthened its chip strategy. During his 15-year tenure, Apple's market capitalisation increased from approximately $350 billion to $4 trillion, according to CNBC.
Similarly, Google's co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin stepped away from executive responsibilities at Alphabet in 2019, more than two decades after establishing the company. Their departure was planned, with Sundar Pichai assuming leadership. Alphabet shares have gained more than 300% since that transition, CNBC reported.
Uber offers another comparison. Co-founder Travis Kalanick resigned as CEO in 2017 following months of controversy and corporate governance concerns. His successor, Dara Khosrowshahi, subsequently focused on restructuring the company and improving profitability.
Nvidia's situation is different because Huang's departure was sudden, and he remained deeply involved in the company's strategy, operations and public identity. His leadership helped transform Nvidia from a graphics chipmaker into a dominant supplier of artificial intelligence infrastructure.
Michael Withers, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame, told CNBC that Nvidia's transition appeared particularly challenging because the company did not seem to have a clearly established succession plan.
CFO Colette Kress has taken over as interim CEO while the board searches for a permanent replacement. However, replacing Huang's technical expertise, industry relationships and leadership style could prove difficult.
For investors, the episode highlights an important corporate governance lesson: founder influence, financial ownership and voting control are not the same. Even a substantial shareholding cannot guarantee control over leadership decisions when the board retains the authority to appoint or remove executives.
For Unparalleled coverage of India's Businesses and Economy – Subscribe to Business Today Magazine