Who Could Buy A Major Stake?
Jensen Huang Has Lost His Position At Nvidia, But He Still Controls A Fortune Large Enough To Reshape The AI Industry.
When Jensen Huang resigned from Nvidia after 33 years at the helm, he left behind the chief executive's office, his board seat and a company facing one of the most extraordinary leadership crises in modern technology. What he did not leave behind was his enormous fortune.
As of 13 November 2026, Huang is worth approximately $144.7 billion, making him the world's 13th-richest person. Nvidia's shares plunged as much as 14.3% during Thursday's trading before recovering to close 4.3% lower at $166.19.
Elon Musk, meanwhile, is estimated to be worth $894.3 billion. He has publicly indicated that hiring Huang would be an honour, raising a remarkable possibility: the world's richest entrepreneur could recruit the man who built the world's most strategically important AI chipmaker.
Yet the financial implications extend considerably further. Nvidia's market valuation remains close to $4 trillion, and Huang retains a multibillion-dollar shareholding. The crisis has created potential opportunities for Musk, sovereign wealth funds, institutional investors and major technology companies.
The critical question is whether any of them can acquire enough Nvidia shares to exercise meaningful influence, or whether hiring its former chief executive would be the more valuable prize.
How Much Is Jensen Huang Worth After Nvidia's Share Price Collapse?
Huang's wealth remains extraordinary despite Nvidia's recent losses.
His fortune stood at approximately $144.7 billion on 13 November, according to the latest available billionaire estimates. That represents a daily decline of about $6.4 billion, or 4.25%, based on the previous trading day's valuation.
Huang is not simply a highly paid former executive. He is a co-founder whose wealth was built through decades of Nvidia share ownership.
According to Nvidia's 2026 annual report, Huang beneficially owned approximately 870.6 million shares, representing 3.58% of the company at the March 2026 reporting date.
At Thursday's closing price of $166.19, that shareholding alone would have a theoretical market value of around $144.7 billion.
The calculation is striking because it illustrates how closely his personal fortune tracks Nvidia's market value.
Every $1 movement in Nvidia's share price changes the market value of 870.6 million shares by approximately $870.6 million, assuming his holdings remain unchanged.
A $10 decline would therefore eliminate approximately $8.7 billion in theoretical share value.
A $20 decline would remove approximately $17.4 billion.
These figures describe changes in the value of shares, not realised personal losses. Huang has not necessarily sold anything, and a recovery in Nvidia's share price would restore some of that paper wealth.
The size of his holding also creates an important distinction between personal wealth and spending power.
Huang cannot simply transfer $145 billion from a bank account into another investment. To convert a substantial portion of his Nvidia shares into cash, he would need to sell or borrow against them, potentially creating tax liabilities, market pressure and financial risk.
His departure as chief executive has not automatically transferred his shareholding to Nvidia's board or its new leadership.
He remains one of its largest individual shareholders.
Why Did Nvidia's Shares Collapse?
Nvidia's immediate crisis concerns its leadership, corporate governance and questions about potential national-security exposure.
The company confirmed Huang's resignation on 12 November, although a regulatory filing states that the board accepted it on 11 November.
Chief financial officer Colette Kress was appointed interim chief executive, while longtime director Harvey Jones became Nvidia's first chairman.
The resignation followed reports concerning Huang's personal relationships, including an alleged connection with a woman suspected by US officials of links to Chinese intelligence and a reported relationship with a Nvidia employee who reported to him.
The intelligence allegations remain unproven. The existence of an investigation does not establish that classified information, proprietary technology or company secrets were compromised.
Nvidia's independent directors had previously commissioned an investigation into the relevant circumstances.
The distinction matters because the financial consequences would be very different depending on the findings.
If the episode ultimately amounts to a serious corporate-governance failure without evidence of compromised technology, Nvidia could potentially recover investor confidence through a credible leadership transition.
If investigators establish a wider security breach, regulatory failure or exposure involving restricted semiconductor technology, the consequences could be considerably more damaging.
Nvidia's share price fell as much as 14.3% during Thursday's trading, but recovered substantially before the close.
The final decline was 4.3%, leaving shares at $166.19.
Across the preceding trading sessions, Nvidia had already experienced significant pressure. Its valuation remained around $4 trillion despite the sell-off, emphasising the enormous financial scale of the company.
This was not the collapse of a struggling business. It was a sharp repricing of a technology giant whose success had become strongly associated with one individual.
That creates an unusual opportunity for investors capable of distinguishing between temporary leadership instability and permanent damage to the business.
Could Elon Musk Buy Nvidia?
Musk is not realistically wealthy enough to buy Nvidia outright, even after its recent decline.
At an illustrative market valuation of $4 trillion, purchasing the entire company would cost $4 trillion before any takeover premium.
A buyer seeking control through a negotiated acquisition would generally need to offer shareholders an incentive to sell, potentially increasing the price substantially.
A 20% premium would imply a transaction valued at approximately $4.8 trillion.
Musk's estimated fortune of $894.3 billion would cover less than one-fifth of that amount.
Even this comparison exaggerates his practical purchasing power because much of his fortune consists of ownership interests in Tesla, SpaceX and other companies rather than available cash.
Liquidating those holdings would carry major financial and operational consequences.
Borrowing against them could theoretically increase his purchasing power, but lenders would consider collateral concentration, volatility, existing liabilities and the risks of financing a takeover on an unprecedented scale.
A consortium supported by private investors, financial institutions and sovereign wealth funds could raise substantially more money than Musk alone.
Nevertheless, financing a multitrillion-dollar acquisition would remain extraordinarily challenging.
Competition regulators would also scrutinise any proposed acquisition by a business heavily dependent on Nvidia technology.
Musk buying Nvidia outright is therefore best understood as a remote hypothetical rather than a practical near-term transaction.
Buying a significant minority stake is a different proposition.
How Much Would A 1%, 3% Or 5% Nvidia Stake Cost?
At a reference valuation of $4 trillion, Nvidia's ownership can be divided into remarkably expensive portions.
One per cent would cost approximately $40 billion.
Three per cent would cost approximately $120 billion.
Five per cent would cost approximately $200 billion.
Ten per cent would cost approximately $400 billion.
Those calculations assume shares can be purchased without affecting the market price. In reality, a buyer attempting to accumulate such a position could drive prices higher, particularly if investors believed an activist campaign or takeover proposal was developing.
Transaction costs, financing arrangements and disclosure obligations would add further complexity.
The most interesting threshold may not be 51% ownership, which would provide straightforward majority voting control. It could be a stake of between 3% and 5%.
Huang's disclosed 3.58% ownership provides a useful comparison.
An investor with a similarly sized holding would become an exceptionally important individual shareholder, although the shares would not automatically provide a board seat, special voting rights or direct executive authority.
Such an investor could seek meetings with directors, propose strategic changes, coordinate with other shareholders or support a particular candidate for chief executive.
A holding of more than 5% generally creates reporting obligations under US securities rules. An investor intending to influence management or corporate strategy would normally face different disclosure requirements from a passive institutional holder.
For Musk, acquiring a significant minority stake would make sense only if the influence or financial return justified the enormous amount of capital tied up.
His ambitions in artificial intelligence could provide a strategic motivation, but they could also create conflicts.
Nvidia supplies technology to competing AI developers, cloud providers and other businesses. Many of those customers would have concerns if a major rival acquired influence over Nvidia's strategic decisions.
An ownership position might therefore prove less useful than it initially appears.
Musk's Most Valuable Opportunity Could Be Jensen Huang Himself
Musk has already publicly expressed interest in recruiting Huang.
Following a suggestion on X that he hire Nvidia's outgoing leader, Musk replied: "That would be an honor."
The response was short, but significant.
It did not identify a role, salary, company or prospective agreement. There is no confirmed evidence of employment negotiations.
Nevertheless, the possibility is strategically compelling.
Huang spent more than three decades developing Nvidia from a graphics-processing business into a central supplier of computing infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
His influence extends beyond chip design. Nvidia's competitive strength includes the CUDA software ecosystem, networking technology, systems engineering, manufacturing partnerships and relationships with the world's largest technology companies.
Huang has been central to the commercial strategy connecting those elements.
Musk's companies operate across electric vehicles, robotics, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and space infrastructure.
Their computing requirements are substantial.
Recruiting Huang could theoretically strengthen Musk's ability to plan large-scale computing systems, develop semiconductor strategies and evaluate the technological direction of the AI industry.
A particularly ambitious possibility would involve Huang contributing to new AI hardware or infrastructure ventures alongside Musk.
That would not mean transferring Nvidia's intellectual property.
Employees and former executives remain subject to applicable confidentiality and contractual obligations, and a former chief executive cannot lawfully take proprietary designs or trade secrets into a competitor's business.
Nor would Huang automatically be able to reproduce Nvidia's success elsewhere.
The company's competitive position depends on thousands of engineers, extensive software investments, customer adoption, supplier relationships and years of accumulated technical development.
But Huang's judgement, industry experience and network could still be extraordinarily valuable.
Musk would also gain something a share purchase could never guarantee: the direct involvement of the person who shaped Nvidia's commercial and technological rise.
The obstacle is Huang's own motivation.
With approximately $145 billion in wealth, he has little obvious financial need to accept employment from another billionaire.
He could retire, establish an independent venture, become an investor, join another organisation or simply retain his Nvidia shares.
Any arrangement would ultimately depend on his preferences, the unresolved investigation and the terms offered.
Could Jensen Huang And Elon Musk Build A New Nvidia Competitor?
A partnership between Huang and Musk would create a formidable combination of financial resources and technical experience, but competing directly with Nvidia would be exceptionally difficult.
Nvidia's advantage is not limited to producing powerful chips.
Its hardware works within a substantial computing platform that includes development tools, software libraries, interconnection technologies and deployment infrastructure.
Customers often invest years building software around that ecosystem.
Replacing Nvidia therefore involves more than manufacturing a processor with competitive specifications.
An alternative supplier needs reliable fabrication capacity, sophisticated packaging, high-bandwidth memory, networking capabilities, software support and a credible long-term product roadmap.
It must also persuade developers and large customers to adopt another computing platform.
This is particularly difficult because leading-edge semiconductor production relies on a relatively small number of specialised companies.
The most advanced chip fabrication processes cannot simply be replicated by building a factory and hiring engineers.
A new venture would need access to equipment, intellectual property, suppliers, experienced employees and a sufficiently large customer base to justify development costs.
Musk could provide substantial demand through his businesses, while Huang could contribute knowledge of the technical and commercial challenges.
Even then, success would be uncertain.
It is also possible that Huang would prefer collaboration with Nvidia rather than competition against the company he founded.
His retained ownership gives him a substantial financial interest in Nvidia continuing to prosper.
For that reason, the assumption that Huang's resignation will automatically turn him into Nvidia's most dangerous competitor is premature.
Who Else Could Buy A Major Stake In Nvidia?
Several organisations and investors have the financial scale to acquire substantial Nvidia holdings.
Their motives and practical constraints differ.
Berkshire Hathaway: The Financial Investor
Berkshire Hathaway is among the world's most financially powerful investment organisations.
Its enormous reserves of cash and short-term investments give it the theoretical ability to acquire a substantial position in a large public company.
At a $4 trillion Nvidia valuation, a 1% holding would require approximately $40 billion.
That is an exceptionally large investment, but one that could fall within the financing capacity of an organisation of Berkshire's scale.
The more difficult question is whether Nvidia fits its investment criteria.
Nvidia's valuation is heavily influenced by expectations for continued AI infrastructure spending and its competitive position in advanced computing.
Its earnings outlook, semiconductor cycles and exposure to technological disruption create risks that differ from those of many traditional Berkshire investments.
A sudden market decline does not automatically make a company inexpensive.
Berkshire would need to believe that Nvidia's future cash flows justified the purchase price, regardless of the leadership controversy.
There is no confirmed announcement that Berkshire is preparing such an investment.
Sovereign Wealth Funds: Capital And Strategic Influence
Major sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and elsewhere control very large investment portfolios.
Their strategic interest in artificial intelligence could make Nvidia attractive.
Countries investing heavily in AI infrastructure may view semiconductor access as important to their economic development and technological independence.
An investment in Nvidia could provide financial exposure to that growth.
But ownership does not guarantee preferential product allocation, access to restricted technology or influence over export-control decisions.
Any foreign state-backed investment seeking significant governance influence in a strategically sensitive US semiconductor business would be subject to intense scrutiny.
A passive minority investment might be simpler than an arrangement granting board representation or operational control.
This distinction could determine whether a proposed investment is politically and legally feasible.
BlackRock And Vanguard: Already Major Shareholders
BlackRock and Vanguard are among Nvidia's largest reported institutional shareholders.
Their holdings largely reflect investments managed on behalf of clients, including index funds and other investment vehicles.
That structure matters.
These firms are not simply wealthy corporations choosing to deploy their own money. Much of the underlying capital belongs to investors whose funds follow defined investment strategies.
An index fund tracking a benchmark cannot necessarily decide to double its Nvidia position because management believes the shares are cheap.
However, large institutional shareholders can exert substantial influence through proxy voting and corporate-governance engagement.
Their response to Nvidia's leadership transition could therefore matter more immediately than speculation about an outside takeover.
Microsoft And Alphabet: Strategic Buyers With Complications
Microsoft and Alphabet have enormous financial resources and a strong commercial interest in AI infrastructure.
Both operate technology businesses that rely on advanced computing capabilities.
An investment in Nvidia could offer financial exposure to semiconductor demand while potentially strengthening an existing commercial relationship.
Yet acquiring influence over a supplier used by numerous competitors would create obvious difficulties.
Other customers could question whether a strategic shareholder would receive preferential information, pricing, allocation or product access.
Competition authorities would examine the implications.
For both companies, long-term supply agreements and internal chip development may be more practical than attempting to exercise influence through Nvidia ownership.
SoftBank And Other Investment Consortiums
SoftBank has a long history of making large, concentrated technology investments.
It also has experience assembling financing structures involving outside investors and corporate partners.
That makes it a conceivable participant in a consortium pursuing a sizeable Nvidia holding.
However, acquiring even 1% of Nvidia would require tens of billions of dollars.
A transaction of that size would depend on funding arrangements, valuation, investment objectives and the willingness of other parties to participate.
A consortium could potentially distribute the cost among several investors, but coordinating their interests could become a challenge in its own right.
No such acquisition plan has been confirmed.
How Wealthy Are Nvidia's Other Senior Leaders?
Huang is by far the wealthiest figure associated with Nvidia's immediate leadership transition.
Colette Kress, the newly appointed interim chief executive, was valued at approximately $1.2 billion by Forbes in June 2026.
That estimate predates the latest Nvidia share-price movements and should not be treated as a live valuation.
Kress joined Nvidia in 2013 and helped oversee its financial development during a period of extraordinary expansion.
She has now inherited responsibility for maintaining investor confidence, customer relationships and financial discipline while the board searches for permanent leadership.
Harvey Jones, the newly appointed chairman, also possesses substantial Nvidia-related wealth.
The company's March 2026 ownership disclosures attributed approximately 7 million shares to Jones.
At Thursday's closing price, those shares would have a theoretical value of approximately $1.16 billion.
That is the value of his disclosed Nvidia shareholding, not a verified estimate of his total personal net worth. His other assets and liabilities are not fully established by that calculation.
The comparison illustrates Nvidia's extraordinary wealth creation.
Huang's ownership is vastly larger, but long-serving executives and directors have also accumulated stakes worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
Kress and Jones may therefore have substantial financial incentives to restore stability and protect Nvidia's long-term value.
That does not mean their interests perfectly match every shareholder's interests, but their exposure to Nvidia's performance is consequential.
Could Musk Buy Jensen Huang's Shares Directly?
One intriguing theoretical transaction would involve Musk purchasing some or all of Huang's existing Nvidia holding.
Instead of gradually accumulating shares on the open market, Musk could seek a negotiated block transaction with Huang or another large shareholder.
Such arrangements can give buyers access to substantial quantities of shares without relying entirely on ordinary exchange trading.
At Thursday's closing price, Huang's disclosed 870.6 million shares would have been worth approximately $144.7 billion.
A purchaser would need to negotiate pricing, financing, settlement arrangements and any applicable regulatory requirements.
The transaction could also create extraordinary tax consequences for Huang.
Most importantly, there is no public evidence that Huang wants to sell his shares.
His ownership represents decades of investment in the company he created.
Selling a substantial part of that stake would be a major personal and financial decision.
Even if Musk acquired the entire holding, the resulting 3.58% interest would still fall far short of majority control.
He would gain meaningful shareholder exposure, not ownership of Nvidia's intellectual property, products or executive decision-making.
The board would retain responsibility for corporate governance, subject to shareholder rights and the company's governing documents.
A purchase of Huang's shares is therefore an interesting financial scenario rather than an established possibility under active negotiation.
What Happens To Nvidia Without Jensen Huang?
The central challenge for Nvidia is maintaining technological leadership after the departure of the individual most closely associated with its strategy.
Huang was more than a public spokesperson.
He played a central role in Nvidia's transition from graphics processors to accelerated computing and AI infrastructure.
His departure creates uncertainty about strategic continuity and the company's ability to execute ambitious product plans.
However, Nvidia is not a one-person operation.
It has established engineering teams, product divisions, customer relationships, software platforms and manufacturing arrangements.
Its competitive position cannot simply disappear because its chief executive resigns.
Kress offers experience in the company's financial operations and relationships with major customers.
The board's search for a permanent successor will be an important test of whether Nvidia can separate its institutional strengths from its founder's leadership.
Potential candidates could bring different priorities.
An internal technology leader might emphasise engineering continuity and product development.
An external semiconductor executive could introduce a different management approach.
A finance-oriented leader might focus on profitability, capital allocation and balancing commercial opportunities against financial risk.
The appropriate choice depends partly on what the board believes caused the crisis and whether its findings reveal deeper organisational problems.
A successor will also inherit difficult questions unrelated to Huang's personal conduct.
How sustainable is the current pace of spending on AI infrastructure?
Can Nvidia defend its margins as customers develop more specialised chips?
Will export restrictions change the geographical distribution of demand?
Can competing semiconductor architectures reduce dependence on Nvidia's computing platform?
The company's next chief executive will face these questions regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
Nvidia's Next Earnings Report Could Matter More Than The Scandal
Nvidia is scheduled to report its third-quarter fiscal 2027 results on Tuesday, 17 November 2026.
This announcement will provide an important opportunity to assess the company's operating performance during the leadership crisis.
Investors will be looking for evidence concerning data-centre revenue, demand for advanced computing systems, profit margins, supply capacity and management's outlook.
Strong results could help establish that Nvidia's commercial momentum remains intact.
Weak guidance or signs of deteriorating demand could reinforce concerns that its valuation had already become too dependent on optimistic growth expectations.
The distinction matters for investors attempting to capitalise on the sell-off.
A share price can fall because market participants demand a higher risk premium, even when underlying earnings remain strong.
It can also fall because the company's future earnings genuinely appear less valuable.
Those are very different investment propositions.
A credible succession plan and robust financial results might produce a recovery.
Further governance revelations, regulatory complications or disappointing earnings could generate additional selling pressure.
Neither outcome is assured.
What Would Make Nvidia An Attractive Acquisition Target?
For an investor with sufficient capital, Nvidia's appeal extends beyond the immediate controversy.
It possesses an established position in AI computing, software development, advanced networking and large-scale data-centre infrastructure.
These capabilities are difficult to reproduce.
The company's products are used across industries ranging from cloud computing and scientific research to robotics and autonomous systems.
That creates potential demand across multiple markets.
But the investment case depends on price.
A company can possess exceptional technology and still be an unattractive investment if its valuation assumes growth that cannot be sustained.
Nvidia's market capitalisation remains enormous even after Thursday's decline.
Investors considering a multibillion-dollar stake must therefore evaluate future earnings, competition, technological change and geopolitical risk rather than assume the stock has become cheap simply because it has fallen.
A buyer seeking strategic influence faces an additional challenge.
Nvidia's independence is commercially valuable because it serves companies that compete against one another.
If a single technology customer gained disproportionate control, other customers might seek to reduce their dependence on Nvidia.
That could damage the very business the investor hoped to influence.
For Musk, Microsoft or Alphabet, the most useful investment might be one that preserves Nvidia's independence while strengthening commercial cooperation.
The Most Realistic Opportunity For Elon Musk
Musk has several ways to benefit from Nvidia's crisis, but they involve different levels of risk and commitment.
Acquiring a 1% holding would cost roughly $40 billion at the illustrative valuation used here. It would create a major financial exposure without guaranteeing strategic influence.
Building a larger position could increase his bargaining power but introduce financing, regulatory and commercial complications.
Recruiting Huang could potentially provide valuable expertise at a fraction of the capital required to purchase a major stake.
Forming a research or infrastructure partnership might offer an alternative that preserves the independence of both businesses.
Musk could also simply continue purchasing Nvidia technology while developing his companies' own computing capabilities.
That option involves no need to become a significant shareholder.
The biggest obstacle to a Musk-Huang partnership may not be money.
It is whether Huang wants a new role, what responsibilities he would accept, and whether any unresolved legal or governance matters would restrict the arrangement.
With an estimated fortune approaching $145 billion, Huang has the financial freedom to choose a future that does not involve employment.
That makes him an unusually powerful figure even after losing the position that defined his career.
The Bigger Question: Who Controls The Future Of AI Computing?
The Nvidia crisis has exposed the difference between owning valuable technology, managing the organisation that develops it and holding shares in the company that profits from it.
Huang has lost executive authority but retains immense financial wealth.
Kress and Nvidia's board now control the immediate leadership transition, but must answer to shareholders and maintain the confidence of customers.
Musk possesses extraordinary wealth and operates businesses that rely on advanced AI computing, yet cannot readily buy Nvidia outright.
Institutional investors and sovereign wealth funds have substantial financial capacity, but ownership would not automatically give them operational control.
The immediate market turbulence therefore creates several possible opportunities, none of which should be mistaken for a confirmed acquisition plan.
The next consequential events are the findings of Nvidia's investigation, the appointment of permanent leadership and the company's earnings announcement on 17 November.
For Huang, the decision is more personal.
He could retain his shares and remain financially invested in the company he created. He could pursue another technological venture. Or he could consider joining forces with an entrepreneur such as Musk.
Whichever path he chooses, one conclusion is already clear: losing control of Nvidia's executive office has not made Jensen Huang financially powerless.
His fortune, experience and influence remain large enough to shape the next phase of the artificial-intelligence industry.
Sources
Nvidia — NVIDIA Announces CEO Transition — Official confirmation of Jensen Huang's departure, Colette Kress's interim appointment, Harvey Jones's chairmanship and the scheduled earnings report.
Nvidia — 2026 Annual Report — Disclosed beneficial ownership of Huang, Kress and Jones, used for the shareholding calculations.
Forbes — Real-Time Billionaires — Estimated wealth of Elon Musk and Jensen Huang as of 13 November 2026.
Forbes — Colette Kress — Her June 2026 billionaire valuation.
CBS News — Nvidia Sheds Nearly $500 Billion in Value as Jensen Huang Resigns — Thursday's closing share price, intraday decline and recent market valuation losses.
Fortune — Jensen Huang Is Out at Nvidia. Elon Musk Says Hiring Him Would Be an Honour — Musk's public response concerning the possibility of recruiting Huang.
