Jensen Huang resigned as Nvidia CEO on November 12 and CFO Colette Kress became interim CEO. Nvidia shares fell more than 4% that day and kept falling on Friday, November 13. Reuters posted its market wrap on the close shortly after midnight Eastern time.

According to the Reuters report, the S&P 500 lost 0.40% to 7,561.67 and the Nasdaq Composite fell 0.91% to 25,136.27 on November 13, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.10% to 52,347.55. Nvidia shares fell 2%, and Reuters says the stock recorded its sixth straight weekly decline, its longest streak since October 2012.

The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell 3.4%, with AMD down 8.8% and Broadcom down 4.8% as the biggest drags, Reuters reports. Neocloud providers CoreWeave and Nebius also fell, and data center firms IREN and Applied Digital lost 6.7% and 5.8%. The S&P 500 technology sector shed 1.7%, the worst of the 11 major sectors.

Reuters cites a Financial Times report that Nvidia's board has approached Arm CEO Rene Haas about succeeding Huang. Anthony Saglimbene of Ameriprise Financial told Reuters there has been "a loss of confidence" and that investors are working out what the AI theme looks like without Huang, who was willing to use Nvidia's balance sheet to fund AI expansion.

CNBC reported that HSBC downgraded Nvidia to hold, expecting the stock to languish until a permanent succession plan is set. Despite Friday's losses, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq both posted weekly gains, snapping four week losing streaks.

Nvidia's third quarter report on November 17 is the next big test, and investors will look for any word on succession and on the company's financing commitments to AI customers. Reuters notes that Anthropic's IPO next week could also test appetite for AI stocks. Watch whether the board's search, including the reported approach to Rene Haas, produces a permanent CEO, which HSBC says is what the stock is waiting for.

The official Grok account posted on November 14 that it is bringing more SpaceX AI products together into one Grok experience, so there is one place to create, build and get work done. One minute earlier, the official Grok Imagine account posted that image and video creation are now live in Grok. Grok's post quotes the Imagine post. Both accounts are official product accounts, and both posts cleared 100,000 views. Grok leads, and the Imagine post is linked as context.

The official Grok account posted at 1:34 PM ET on November 14, "We're bringing more @spacexai products together into one Grok experience, so there's one place to create, build and get work done." The post quotes an official Grok Imagine post sent one minute earlier, at 1:33 PM ET, which said, "Image and video creation now live in Grok. Just open Grok and start creating."

Both accounts carry official business verification. Grok's post had about 203,000 views in this scan, and the Imagine post had about 188,000, so either could lead on views. Grok leads because it is the broader product announcement, and because it is the post that frames the Imagine launch as part of putting more SpaceX AI products in one place. The Imagine post is kept as a context link in the same story.

The posts do not list which other products are moving into Grok, whether a standalone Imagine app remains, or whether image and video creation opened for every account at the same time. No extra media was attached to either post in this scan. A separate November 14 story in this deck covers SemiAnalysis reporting on SpaceXSI's MiniHard data center; that is an infrastructure claim, not this product change.

The Grok post tags spacexai, the handle used in the text for SpaceX Super Intelligence. This story treats that as a reference to SpaceX's AI products, not as a second lead.

Watch for an official changelog or an in product list that names which SpaceX AI tools now live inside Grok, and for user reports on whether image and video creation opened for everyone or only for some accounts. A later post from Grok, Grok Imagine, or SpaceX Super Intelligence could also say whether standalone apps remain. If the feature is limited at launch, that would narrow what today's posts announced.

DogeDesigner posted on November 14, citing SemiAnalysis, that SpaceXSI had finished MiniHard construction in about 5 months, and that a new Gun Range site just south of the Tennessee and Mississippi state line is targeting about 4 months of construction. The post says SemiAnalysis estimates SpaceXSI is roughly halving construction timelines while most comparable projects face 8 to 12 month builds, and it lists other figures for Colossus 1, Colossus 2, Project SPAM, a projected rise from 0.4 GW to 2.4 GW of IT capacity at the Memphis Mississippi campus by the end of 2026, and 1,377 Tesla Megapacks at Colossus 2. SemiAnalysis posted the same findings in an official thread at 7:36 PM ET on November 13, but that thread had about 53,000 views on the lead post, under the 100,000 view bar for a lead, so this story uses the widely viewed secondhand post and attributes the figures to SemiAnalysis.

DogeDesigner posted on November 14 that SpaceXSI had completed MiniHard construction in about 5 months, with Gun Range targeting about 4 months, "according to SemiAnalysis." The post says SemiAnalysis is the source for a claim that SpaceXSI is roughly halving construction timelines while most comparable projects face 8 to 12 month builds. It also repeats SemiAnalysis figures that Colossus 1's first retrofit delivered 150 MW in 122 days, that a later Colossus 2 retrofit delivered 210 MW in 91 days, that Project SPAM started on October 5 with first capacity targeted for December, that the Memphis Mississippi campus is projected to grow from 0.4 GW of IT capacity in January to 2.4 GW by the end of 2026 across Macrohard, MiniHard, Macroharder, Project SPAM and Gun Range, and that SemiAnalysis counts 1,377 Tesla Megapacks across Colossus 2, providing nearly 6 GWh of battery storage. The post itself notes that the construction timelines and capacity forecasts are SemiAnalysis estimates, with future milestones still targets.

Those figures match an official SemiAnalysis thread posted at 7:36 PM ET on November 13, which is 12:36 AM UTC on November 14. SemiAnalysis wrote that MiniHard finished construction in about 5 months and that Gun Range, just south of the state line, will take about 4 months, which it called, to its knowledge, the fastest greenfield datacenter ever built at scale. The same thread and the related newsletter also discuss power, including a TVA grid connection that SemiAnalysis says covers about 1.2 GW for Macrohard and MiniHard, and a possible shortfall of around 300 MW once mobile turbines at Southaven retire. The newsletter cites local filings that Macrohard (700 MW) and MiniHard (450 MW) have requested service.

The official SemiAnalysis lead post in that thread had about 53,000 views in this scan, under the 100,000 view bar, and no official SpaceXSI post on MiniHard with 100,000 or more views was found. This story therefore keeps the widely viewed DogeDesigner post as the lead and attributes the claims to SemiAnalysis. SpaceXSI has not confirmed the timelines in the posts reviewed here.

Watch for official SpaceXSI confirmation that MiniHard is finished and entering service, and for whether Gun Range and Project SPAM meet the 4 month and December targets. Grid connection dates, including the substation SemiAnalysis says is scheduled by December 31, 2026, will show whether the capacity forecasts are on track. Satellite or permit updates, and any Tesla Megapack filings, would also test the campus capacity path from 0.4 GW to 2.4 GW.

Nvidia's board accepted Jensen Huang's resignation on November 12 and named CFO Colette Kress interim CEO. An independent open letter at standwithjensen.com asks the board to reinstate him, and Elon Musk said on November 13 that he had signed it. Gayatri Sarkar posted a list of the board members' backgrounds under the line "No wonder Jensen got fired."

Early on November 14, Elon Musk replied to a post by Gayatri Sarkar that listed the credentials of Nvidia's directors, writing: "This is the board making decisions about what used to be the most valuable company on Earth!?" His reply drew more than 370,000 views within hours.

The Kobeissi Letter amplified the comment and listed the board as Harvey Jones, listed as chairman of Square Wave Ventures, Stephen Neal, Tench Coxe, John Dabiri of Caltech, Dawn Hudson, Melissa Lora, Brooke Seawell of New Enterprise Associates, Aarti Shah, Mark Stevens of S Cubed Capital and Suzanne Nora Johnson. Its list describes several of them as former executives at Cooley, Sutter Hill, the NFL, Taco Bell, Eli Lilly and Goldman Sachs.

About an hour later, the Kobeissi Letter reported that the open letter to reinstate Huang had passed 65,000 signatures, including more than 35,000 shareholders and 4,700 current and former Nvidia employees, and that it alleges Huang was removed "without meaningful due process." These signature counts come from the account's post and were not independently verified in the posts scanned.

Musk's remark is commentary rather than a new action by Nvidia. The board had not responded publicly to the letter or to Musk in the posts scanned.

Watch whether Nvidia's board answers the open letter or the criticism of its makeup before the company reports third quarter results on November 17. Signature counts on the letter are self reported by its organizers, so independent tallies would help. Any shareholder move to change the board, or a statement from Huang himself, would be the clearest sign the campaign is gaining real leverage.

Mojo posted on November 14 that Nvidia failed to buy directors and officers liability insurance and that the company will be buried under litigation. The post includes screenshots of a Financial Times article by Lee Harris, published the same day, which is more precise than the caption. According to that article, Nvidia has up to $900 million of Side A cover for the personal assets of executives and board members, but two people familiar with the policy said it lacked company side directors and officers cover, known as Side B and Side C. Nvidia did not comment to the Times. The claim is labeled unverified.

Mojo posted at 9:39 AM ET on November 14 that Nvidia "failed to buy D&O liability insurance," called that amateur hour for a company of this size, and said the company will be buried under litigation. The attached screenshots are from a Financial Times article by Lee Harris, published the same day, titled "Nvidia exposed to possible lawsuits after Jensen Huang's downfall."

The Times article, as shown in the screenshots and in the published piece, does not say Nvidia bought no directors and officers insurance at all. It says Nvidia has up to $900 million of Side A coverage protecting the personal assets of its executives and board members, placed through Aon with insurers that included Beazley, AIG and Chubb, according to people familiar with the coverage. Two people familiar with the policy told the Times the program did not include Side B and Side C cover, which would protect the company's own balance sheet against damages and legal costs from the conduct of executives.

The article says lawyers and brokers told the Times it is uncommon for large public companies to skip Side B or Side C, and it cites a 2018 WTW survey in which 91 percent of public companies reported buying standalone directors and officers insurance and more than 80 percent bought Side B and Side C as well as Side A. It also reports that shareholders filed a proposed class action this week against Nvidia and Huang over statements about Huang's relationship to Alice Huang, and that Nvidia shares closed 4.3 percent lower on Thursday. The size of the Side A cover, the Times says, was first reported by Insurance Insider. Beazley, Aon and AIG declined to comment, and Nvidia and Chubb did not respond, the Times reported.

Because the insurance details rest on unnamed sources, Nvidia has not commented, and Mojo's caption is broader than the article it screenshots, this story is labeled unverified and ranked last in the November 14 deck.

Watch for a Nvidia comment, or for a securities filing that describes the company's insurance program, which would move the Side B and Side C gap beyond unnamed sources. The shareholder suit cited by the Times will also show whether claims are aimed at the company, at individuals, or at both, which is what Side A versus Side B and Side C would treat differently. Any later Insurance Insider or Financial Times update, or a denial from an insurer, would test the original account.