[multicast]

Good point, I did not mention that. Non-registered investment advisors are also included but this relates more to banks, bank holdings and broker/dealers (e.g. investment banks) who trade on 'investment discretion'[1]. Thus it means entities that are not registered as an investment advisor but still invest on behalf of outside clients and not their own book. This does clearly not apply to Nvidia. It is highly unlikely and not logical that they would manage money for third parties in the name of the public corporate entity, just for a pure side hustle. As that would not contribute much financially (in terms of fees that are earned from managing money on behalf of others) nor to their core business.

The reason for this 13F filing, as you already guessed to some extent, is that Nvidia is a publicly traded company. As such it is subject to a wide range of SEC filings including those from section 13[2].

Nvidia seems to be a rare case. Acquiring public equity, as a company - especially as a public one, just for the purpose of managing concurrent assets, is very unusual but not out of the question - just away from the textbook. Given the fact that its ARM, whose acquisition failed before Nvidia filed the 13F, it could also serve some other purpose, e.g. showing that interest is still present.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq#:~:text=Bank....

[2] https://www.legalandcompliance.com/securities-law/sec-report...