Gavin Baker, managing partner and chief investment officer of Atreides Management, posted on X at 01:33 UTC on 12 November that Nvidia’s board should wait for the results of its investigation before removing the chief executive, a view he said large shareholders and partners had put to him. Elon Muskreplied at 01:50 UTC with a single emoji, 💯, the hundred points symbol.
Atreides is an Nvidia holder: its latest 13F filing reports 1,249,291 Nvidia shares worth $249,970,636 at 30 June 2026, 1.74% of the $14.34 billion it reported, by our arithmetic. The board announced its independent investigation on 8 November; 74.5 hours later, by our arithmetic, the Wall Street Journal reported that the board was preparing to remove the chief executive.
Business Pill · Concentration Explained
An evergreen Business Engineer explainer on concentration, the general idea behind a holding where a few owners or a few positions account for most of the total. It teaches the concept only and does not discuss this story.
The key insight: As we read it, the post is about timing and channel rather than outcome: Baker says the board should wait for its own investigation’s results, and directs callers to the people who can affect the decision instead of to an investor whose firm reported 1,249,291 Nvidia shares at 30 June.
Baker’s post reads in full: “For all of the large shareholders and partners calling me to say that Nvidia’s board should wait for the results of the investigation before ousting Jensen: I agree. So don’t call me, call people who can impact the decision.” His X profile lists him as managing partner and CIO of Atreides and says the views are his own.
Musk’s reply carries no words beyond the emoji and the handle it answers. We read both posts in full and quote them here as each author’s view.
Timeline: the board’s investigation statement of 8 November (20:00 UTC), the independent directors’ statement of 10 November, the Wall Street Journal report of 11 November (22:28 UTC), the X posts by Gavin Baker (01:33 UTC) and Elon Musk (01:50 UTC) on 12 November, and the quarterly results call Nvidia set for 17 November in its release of 28 October. The 74.5 hours between the statement and the report are our arithmetic; Nvidia’s latest 8-K on EDGAR was dated 3 September when we checked.
What Was Posted on X
For all of the large shareholders and partners calling me to say that Nvidia’s board should wait for the results of the investigation before ousting Jensen:
I agree.
So don’t call me, call people who can impact the decision.
Gavin Baker, whose X profile lists him as managing partner and CIO of Atreides Management, posted at 01:33 UTC on 12 November that he agrees Nvidia’s board should wait for the results of its investigation, and asked callers to contact the people who can affect the decision. The piece quotes the post in full and sets it against the board’s published process and Atreides’ 13F.
Elon Musk replied to Baker’s post at 01:50 UTC with a single emoji, the hundred points symbol, and no other words. The piece reports the reply as an endorsement of the post and reads nothing further into it.
Where the Board Process Stands
On 8 November Nvidia’s board said it was “initiating an independent investigation” and that “A committee of independent directors, assisted by outside independent counsel, will oversee the investigation.” The board added that it “will provide further updates as appropriate.”
On 10 November the independent members of the board said they had retained Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz “to conduct a thorough and independent investigation”. Neither statement gives a date for results.
The Wall Street Journal reported on 11 November, citing people familiar with the matter, that the board was preparing to remove the chief executive, as set out in our report on the after-hours move. Bloomberg, CNBC and Reuters then reported that the board was meeting; Reuters said the meeting was late on Wednesday, and CNBC said Nvidia did not respond to its request for comment.
When we checked EDGAR at 06:38 UTC on 12 November, Nvidia’s latest 8-K was dated 3 September, so no Item 5.02 filing on an officer change had been made, and the newest board item in its newsroom was the statement of 10 November.
Who Decides
Baker’s post points the calls at “people who can impact the decision”. Under Nvidia’s bylaws an officer can be removed “by the affirmative vote of a majority of the directors in office at the time”, 6 of the 11 directors seated since 13 July 2026, as set out in our explainer on removing a CEO under Nvidia’s bylaws.
Shareholders act through the board they elect. At the 24 June 2026 annual meeting, stockholders elected all ten director nominees and approved the advisory vote on executive pay by 15,706,336,853 shares to 1,071,224,151, or 93.6% of the shares voted for or against, by our arithmetic. The nine outside directors held 74,731,067 shares at 23 March 2026, as set out in our piece on Nvidia’s outside directors: 59.8 times Atreides’ June position, by our arithmetic.
What Atreides’ Filings Show
Atreides’ 13F for 30 June 2026, filed on 14 August, lists 49 lines with a reported value of $14,335,417,162. Nvidia was the 12th-largest issuer by value. Three months earlier the firm reported 1,248,592 Nvidia shares worth $217,754,445, 4.35% of its reported $5.0 billion and the 6th-largest issuer, by our arithmetic.
By our arithmetic, the share count rose by 699 shares, while Nvidia’s weight fell because the reported total was 2.9 times the March figure. The 1,249,291 shares are about 0.005% of the 24.1 billion Nvidia shares outstanding on its latest 10-Q cover, by our arithmetic. The largest line in the June filing was Space Exploration Technologies Corp at $4,670,106,641, 32.6% of the reported total by our arithmetic; Musk runs SpaceX.
Atreides’ proxy-voting filing for the year to 30 June 2026 records 688,331 Nvidia shares voted FOR the advisory approval of executive compensation at the 24 June meeting, in line with management’s recommendation; it is the only Nvidia vote in that filing. A 13F for 30 September was not on EDGAR when we checked at 06:40 UTC, so current holdings are not known.
The Structural Read
As we read the dates, the board’s investigation was 74.5 hours old, by our arithmetic, when the Wall Street Journal reported that the board was preparing to remove the chief executive, and neither board statement gives a date for results. A New York Times report earlier that evening had already moved Nvidia’s after-hours price, as set out in our piece on the first after-hours drop.
As we read the filings, the decision sits with the directors under Nvidia’s bylaws, while shareholders act through director elections; Atreides’ 13F position was about 0.005% of Nvidia’s 24.1 billion shares, by our arithmetic.
Nvidia Board of Directors, statement of 8 November 2026
“A committee of independent directors, assisted by outside independent counsel, will oversee the investigation.”
Three Implications
FOR NVIDIA’S BOARD An investigation announced on 8 November and run with outside counsel retained on 10 November; any officer change would be reported on Form 8-K under Item 5.02.
FOR SHAREHOLDERS They elected all ten director nominees at the 24 June 2026 annual meeting, and the directors decide on officers under the bylaws.
FOR ATREIDES Its June 13F lists Nvidia as its 12th-largest issuer at 1.74% of reported value, by our arithmetic; its September 13F was not on EDGAR at 06:40 UTC.
The framework says of Layer 9, Governance: “No longer a passive layer; an active priced variable.”
As we read it, the timing of a board decision at Nvidia, which the framework places at the silicon layer, is now argued in public by investors on X. The framework predates these posts and does not discuss them.
The twelve largest issuers by reported value in Atreides Management’s 13F-HR for 30 June 2026, filed on 14 August 2026: Nvidia is twelfth at $249,970,636 for 1,249,291 shares, 1.74% of the $14,335,417,162 reported total. The QQQ line is put options; the Meta and Cerebras lines include call options. Issuer totals and the share are our arithmetic.
What Is Not Established
Baker did not name the shareholders or partners who called him, or say how many there were. Whether any director has heard from shareholders is not established, and the board has published no timetable for its decision or for the investigation’s results. We make no claim about the matters under investigation.
The 13F reports holdings at 30 June 2026 and does not show later trades. Musk’s reply is an emoji, and we do not read more into it than its plain endorsement of the post. We did not contact Atreides, Nvidia or Musk for this piece.
This Week In The AI Supercycle
The Great Convergence of Capital, Power, and Geopolitics
This week’s issue: for two years the AI build-out was priced as a supply story, and last week as a credit story. This week it was priced as a permission story, and the answer arrived as a cost, not a ban.
An investor whose firm reported 1,249,291 Nvidia shares in June says he agrees the board should wait for its investigation’s results, and Musk endorsed the post. The investigation was 74.5 hours old when the Journal reported that the board was preparing to remove the chief executive, by our arithmetic, and no 8-K on an officer change had been filed when we checked at 06:38 UTC.
A note on sourcing. We read Gavin Baker’s post and Elon Musk’s reply in full on X, Nvidia’s board statements of 8 and 10 November in full in its newsroom, and the SEC filings directly on EDGAR: Nvidia’s filing list and its 8-K on the 2026 annual meeting, and Atreides Management’s 13F-HR filings for 31 March and 30 June 2026 and its N-PX for the year to 30 June 2026.
The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, CNBC and Reuters reports are as cited in our earlier coverage. The bylaw quote and the board size are from our explainer on Nvidia’s bylaws, and the outside directors’ holdings from our piece on Nvidia’s 2026 proxy. Percentages, ratios and the hour count are our arithmetic. Under our editorial policy this piece covers governance only and names no private individuals. We did not contact Atreides, Nvidia or Musk.
Gennaro Cuofano is a CRO and tech executive who has worked in AI since late 2015, starting with bringing NLP, natural-language generation, voice and chatbot products to the marketing industry. His background is in law and finance: he holds a Master's degree in Law and an International MBA with an emphasis on corporate finance (LUISS Business School and the University of San Diego, 2012), and worked as a financial analyst at a real-estate investment firm in San Diego and as an assistant controller. His work focuses on business model strategy, business engineering and, more broadly, structural analysis: how companies make money, read from their own filings. He created FourWeekMBA and leads research there and at The Business Engineer, his newsletter on AI and business strategy, with over 95,000 subscribers and more than 1,000 published analyses. His writing has also appeared on Entrepreneur (for example, How to Digitize a Family Business in Europe) and HackerNoon. Find him on LinkedIn and Substack. See how we source.
