Nvidia plunges 8.6% after hours. AMD and Broadcom rise, but their valuations tell another story
I’m keeping a very close eye on the escalating tech volatility today, starting with the fact that Nasdaq futures slid 0.8% following WSJ reports that Nvidia’s board is preparing to oust CEO Jensen Huang.
That leadership uncertainty is already triggering rapid analyst recalibrations, with Bernstein becoming the third broker in two days to step back, slashing their Nvidia price target to $200 (!)
While the market digests the fallout at the top of the AI hardware chain, I’m watching the immediate competitive ripples, specifically how Google’s TPUs could capture market share from this turmoil to build a $50 billion opportunity.
Despite the turbulence in GPU leadership, broader AI infrastructure and frontier models remain incredibly resilient; I need to see if buyers step up, especially given that CoreWeave surged impressively after its latest earnings report, and institutional demand is running hot with the Anthropic IPO already heavily oversubscribed ahead of its massive $90 billion listing.
The latest reports about Jensen Huang have put Nvidia’s leadership under scrutiny just days before earnings. Semiconductor stocks are reacting very differently, creating opportunities and risks for traders. But comparing their valuations reveals a less obvious investment picture.
Nvidia’s leadership crisis has divided the semiconductor sector. In Wednesday’s late after-hours trading, NVDA fell 8.62%, while AMD gained 4.32% and Broadcom advanced 2.39%. That gives traders two clear relative-strength candidates, but investors face a more complicated question: Why is Nvidia trading at a substantially lower forward earnings multiple than some of its potential beneficiaries?
Nvidia’s problem is no longer just about Jensen Huang’s personal conduct
On November 11, The New York Times reported an alleged second extramarital relationship involving Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and a company vice president who reports directly to him.
The allegations have not been independently established, and Nvidia has not publicly confirmed the reported relationship.
More consequential for shareholders, Reuters reported that Nvidia’s board was meeting late Wednesday to consider whether to remove Huang as CEO. No completed removal had been confirmed at the time of this analysis.
This represents an important escalation from November 8, when Nvidia’s board announced an independent investigation while expressing confidence in Huang’s leadership. The board also stated that it had no reason to believe Nvidia’s secrets or national security had been compromised.
For shareholders, the issue is now leadership continuity at one of the world’s most important technology companies.
And there is another complication. The Information reports that the U.S. Commerce Department is finalizing additional restrictions intended to prevent Chinese AI companies from remotely accessing advanced chips through overseas data centers. These proposed measures introduce a separate regulatory risk, making it difficult to attribute Nvidia’s entire price decline to the leadership controversy.
An extraordinary divergence in semiconductor stocks
NVDA after hours
-8.62%
$158.76
AMD after hours
+4.32%
$576.76
AVGO after hours
+2.39%
$353.47
AMD outperformed Nvidia by almost 13% (!) during the observed after-hours period. Broadcom outperformed by 11% so that is an exceptional short-term divergence among major semiconductor companies.
Nvidia’s decline also implies approximately $361 billion of market capitalization lost relative to Wednesday’s regular-session close, based on the Finviz closing valuation. This is a change in implied equity value, not $361 billion of cash leaving the company.
But AMD and Broadcom are not necessarily receiving that capital. Rising share prices do not prove that money is directly rotating out of Nvidia into its competitors.
What the reaction does show is a willingness to distinguish between individual semiconductor companies rather than sell everything related to artificial intelligence.
Semiconductor stock valuations: Which opportunities come at a reasonable price?
The following comparison uses Finviz valuation metrics from November 11’s regular-session close alongside the later after-hours price changes.
Forward P/E compares the stock price with estimated future earnings, P/S compares market value with revenue, and EV/EBITDA compares enterprise value with operating earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Multiples reflect regular-session closing valuations, not recalculated after-hours values. Forward estimates can change.
The surprising observation is Nvidia’s valuation.
Despite the company’s dominant position in AI computing, its Finviz forward P/E of 11 is considerably below AMD’s 31.33 and Broadcom’s 17.87.
Nvidia also trades at approximately 20.5 times enterprise value to EBITDA, compared with AMD’s 81.1 times.
This does not automatically make Nvidia the better investment. Different earnings forecasts, product mixes, capital requirements and expected growth rates explain part of the valuation gap.
However, it challenges an easy assumption that investors should simply abandon Nvidia and buy whichever competitor is rising.
An expensive stock can continue outperforming. A cheaper stock can become cheaper still when investors are uncertain about leadership, future earnings or regulatory exposure.
AMD: The clearest potential competitive beneficiary, but not a bargain
AMD is arguably the most obvious direct competitor for investors to investigate.
Unlike Nvidia, AMD does not face the same company-specific leadership controversy. It also has a growing presence in data-center accelerators and CPUs.
There is fundamental evidence supporting the interest.
According to AMD’s November 3 earnings release, third-quarter data-center revenue reached $8.5 billion, up 97% year over year, supported by its Instinct GPU and EPYC processor businesses.
That growth provides a stronger investment argument than merely hoping customers become nervous about Nvidia.
Still, AMD’s valuation is demanding. Its forward P/E exceeds Nvidia’s by nearly three times, and its EV/EBITDA is approximately four times as high.
For investors, AMD needs to continue delivering exceptional growth to justify that premium.
For traders, the immediate test on Thursday is whether the stock can maintain its relative strength when regular U.S. trading resumes, rather than surrender Wednesday’s after-hours gains.
Broadcom: A different way to invest in the AI spending cycle
Broadcom offers a somewhat different opportunity.
Its exposure to custom AI accelerators, networking infrastructure and enterprise software means it is not simply another supplier of Nvidia-style GPUs.
That diversification may be attractive to investors concerned about Nvidia-specific execution and leadership risks.
Broadcom’s September quarterly report showed AI semiconductor revenue of $16.7 billion, up 221% year over year, with management forecasting continued growth in its next fiscal quarter.
At a forward P/E of 17.87, Broadcom trades below AMD’s multiple but above Nvidia’s.
It is not inexpensive on every measure, especially price-to-sales. Nevertheless, Broadcom combines demonstrated AI-related revenue growth with exposure to customer-designed chips and networking.
Its positive after-hours reaction makes it a leading candidate for continued relative-strength monitoring.
Micron, Marvell and TSMC: Potential casualties or opportunities?
Micron (MU): A low multiple with a cyclical warning
Micron fell 2.76% after hours despite a Finviz forward P/E of only 3.84.
That valuation looks strikingly low, particularly alongside strong reported revenue growth.
But memory earnings are cyclical, and unusually low forward multiples can reflect expectations that profits are approaching a cyclical peak. Micron also benefits from AI demand beyond Nvidia alone.
Investors should examine the sustainability of memory prices and profitability before interpreting the multiple as evidence of undervaluation.
Marvell (MRVL): Attractive AI infrastructure exposure, but weak relative price action
Marvell declined 3.00%.
Its custom silicon and interconnect exposure could make it an alternative beneficiary of AI investment, but the after-hours reaction suggests investors were not treating it as an immediate winner.
At 23.19 times forward earnings and 52.49 times EV/EBITDA, Marvell does not offer an obvious valuation discount.
A recovery that begins outperforming the broader semiconductor sector would improve the case.
TSMC (TSM): A potentially more neutral way to own AI manufacturing
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing fell 1.95% after hours.
Because TSMC manufactures chips for multiple leading designers, including Nvidia and AMD, competition between those customers does not necessarily damage TSMC’s business.
Its forward P/E of 17.89 and EV/EBITDA of 17.98 are also more moderate than AMD’s.
The important risk is different: if uncertainty translates into weaker overall AI investment, manufacturing demand could eventually be affected regardless of which chip designer wins.
TSMC therefore deserves attention as a potentially more diversified semiconductor opportunity, not an automatic beneficiary of Nvidia’s difficulties.
What traders should watch on Thursday, November 12
The first question is whether Wednesday’s extended-hours divergence survives the regular trading session.
Nvidia: Does the breakdown hold?
NVDA closed the regular session at $173.73 before falling to $158.76 after hours.
The latter is below the $164.27 regular-session 52-week low shown in the November 11 data. That makes $164.27 a useful reference for assessing whether buyers can recover territory lost during the selloff.
A sustained recovery above that reference would weaken the immediate bearish case. Continuing to trade below it would leave Nvidia vulnerable to further volatility.
Wednesday’s $173.73 close is another reference for measuring how much of the overnight decline has been reversed, not a guaranteed gap-filling target.
AMD and Broadcom: Do buyers defend the relative strength?
Watch whether their gains hold despite potential weakness in the Nasdaq and semiconductor benchmarks.
If both continue outperforming, that would support the interpretation that investors are differentiating between AI companies.
If those gains quickly reverse, it could indicate that the after-hours excitement was temporary rather than the beginning of a more durable change in relative performance.
The semiconductor supply chain: Does weakness spread?
Micron, Marvell, TSMC and other chip-related stocks offer a useful comparison.
Their behavior can help distinguish an Nvidia-specific valuation adjustment from a broader reassessment of AI spending.
This also matters for companies further along the AI infrastructure chain. As investingLive discussed in its recent CoreWeave post-earnings analysis, strong AI demand does not eliminate concerns about financing, capital expenditure or profitability.
Nvidia’s November 17 earnings could become an even bigger event
Nvidia is scheduled to discuss its third-quarter fiscal 2027 financial results on Tuesday, November 17, at 5 p.m. ET, according to its investor relations calendar.
That creates two distinct questions for investors.
The first concerns company leadership: Will Huang remain CEO, and will the board provide a credible plan for stability?
The second is financial: Does Nvidia’s revenue growth, profitability and outlook continue to justify confidence in its dominant competitive position?
The two questions are related but not identical.
A change in CEO would not automatically reduce demand for Nvidia chips. Likewise, exceptionally strong earnings would not, by themselves, resolve governance or national-security concerns.
For longer-term investors, a lower share price could become attractive if the business outlook remains intact and leadership uncertainty diminishes.
For short-term traders, however, volatile news-driven conditions require more caution than an apparently attractive valuation multiple.
The central takeaway: AMD and Broadcom are the most obvious relative-strength candidates after Wednesday’s reaction. Nvidia itself may deserve renewed examination on valuation, but only with full recognition of the unresolved leadership risks. Micron and TSMC warrant further fundamental investigation rather than automatic classification as losers.
The next U.S. session should help show whether the market is selectively reassessing Nvidia or beginning to question the broader AI investment cycle.
This article was written by Itai Levitan at investinglive.com.