Prediction: Wall Street's Latest Stock-Split Stock -- Up 60,120% Year-to-Date -- Is Going to Implode... It's Just a Matter of Time
Since the S&P 500 's bull market began in October 2022, no trend has provided a bigger lift to equities than the evolution of artificial intelligence (AI). In Sizing the Prize, the analysts at PwC estimated AI would bolster the worldwide economy to the tune of $15.7 trillion come 2030.
However, AI isn't the only reason Wall Street's major indexes keep climbing. In addition to the long-term potential AI brings to the table, investor euphoria surrounding stock splits in high-flying companies has kept the stock market's engine humming along.
Stock-split euphoria has helped power the broader market higher
A stock split is a mechanism publicly traded companies have at their disposal which allows them to cosmetically alter their share price and outstanding share count by the same magnitude. These adjustments are surface-scratching in the sense that stock splits don't affect a company's market cap or its operating performance.
Although splits can increase (reverse split) or decrease (forward split) a company's share price, there's a clear delineation as to which variety of split investors typically gravitate to.
Reverse splits that boost a company's share price and concurrently reduce its outstanding share count by the same factor are often avoided by investors. This type of split is usually undertaken by companies that are struggling on an operating basis and completing their split in an effort to avoid delisting from a major U.S. stock exchange.
On the other hand, companies that conduct forward splits are generally sought after by investors. If a company has to lower its share price to make its stock more nominally affordable for retail investors who can't purchase fractional shares with their broker, it's often doing something right. This "something" comes in the form of superior operational execution and top-tier innovation.
But as you're about to see, not all forward stock-split stocks are necessarily great businesses.
Non-tech stock-split stocks have taken center stage in 2025
Last year, more than a dozen prominent stocks announced and completed a forward split, many of which can be traced to the technology sector and the artificial intelligence revolution. This includes the face of the AI movement, Nvidia, as well as one of the newest members of the trillion-dollar club, Broadcom.
In 2025, only a small number of high-profile companies have announced and completed stock splits. But the one factor they all have in common is they don't hail from the tech sector.
Wholesale industrial and construction supplies company Fastenal (NASDAQ: FAST) was the first to actually complete its split (2-for-1) following the close of trading on May 21. It's the ninth time Fastenal has split its stock over the last 37 years.
The reason splits have become part of Fastenal's corporate culture is because its stock, including dividends, has increased in value by more than 210,000% since its initial public offering in 1987. This is a reflection of Fastenal's strong cyclical ties to the U.S. economy, as well as its innovation, which has allowed it to become ingrained in the supply chains of America's leading industrial companies.
Following Fastenal's lead was auto parts supplier O'Reilly Automotive (NASDAQ: ORLY), which effected a 15-for-1 forward split following the end of trading on June 9. O'Reilly's split reduced its nominal share price from nearly $1,400 to around $90.
On top of having one of Wall Street's most-effective share-repurchase programs -- O'Reilly Automotive has spent $25.9 billion to buy back more than 59% of its outstanding shares since the start of 2011 -- the company is benefiting from the aging of America's cars and light trucks. In the latest annual report from S&P Global Mobility, the average age of cars and light trucks on U.S. roadways hit a record 12.8 years in 2025. As vehicles age, drivers and mechanics are becoming more reliant on auto parts chains like O'Reilly.
The other preeminent company that announced and completed a forward split in 2025 is electronic automated brokerage firm Interactive Brokers Group (NASDAQ: IBKR). It effected its first-ever split (4-for-1) after the closing bell on June 17.
Interactive Brokers' aggressive investments in technology and automation, coupled with the positive impact long-lasting bull markets have had on investors, have virtually all of its key performance indicators pointing higher by a double-digit percentage. It's enjoying double-digit year-over-year growth in total accounts, equity on its platform, and trading activity.
While all three of these businesses have proven their worth to Wall Street, the same can't be said about Wall Street's latest stock-split stock, which is eventually going to implode.
Wall Street's newest stock-split stock is chock-full of red flags
Following the close of trading on Friday, June 13, clinical-stage traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) company Regencell Bioscience Holdings (NASDAQ: RGC) put a 38-for-1 forward stock split into effect. This split was designed to reduce Regencell's share price from $595 to less than $16 per share, all while increasing its outstanding share count by a factor of 38.
The magnitude of this split (38-for-1), coupled with Regencell's year-to-date gain of 60,120% (that's not a typo!), as of the closing bell on June 17, would suggest that it's an operating marvel -- but this couldn't be further from the truth.
Since commencing its operations in 2015, Hong-Kong-based Regencell hasn't generated a cent in revenue, nor does it have in any products remotely close to being commercialized, based on its regulatory filings. But this hasn't stopped the company's valuation from soaring to nearly $39 billion.
During fiscal 2024, which ended on June 30, Regencell had $4.74 million in operating expenses, no sales, and ultimately reported a comprehensive loss of $4.32 million. It ended its fiscal year with (drum roll) 12 employees, only four of which are involved with research and development and one tied to sales (despite a complete lack of products).
Here's a snippet of one of the more pertinent risk factors for the company:
Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, partnering with the TCM Practitioner to conduct research studies, identifying potential partnerships and TCM formulae candidates, acquiring TCM raw materials, and conducting research and development activities for our TCM formulae candidates. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to successfully complete large-scale, pivotal research studies. We have also not yet applied for or obtained regulatory approval for, or demonstrated an ability to manufacture or commercialize, any of our TCM formulae candidates.
Furthermore, Regencell's risk factors point to there being no guarantees that the company can successfully patent and/or protect its TCM products from third-party claims or even breaches of intellectual property agreements (not covered by patents) with its own employees.
But wait -- there's more!
With the company extremely early in its development process, sporting no sales, and having no virtually no possibility of sustained positive operating cash flow anytime soon, it also brings a going concern warning to the table. A "going concern warning" effectively means the company's current assets aren't expected to be sufficient to cover its current liabilities over the next 12 months.
If you're wondering how a clinical-stage healthcare company with no sales or products skyrockets more than 60,000% in less than six months and executes one of the largest forward splits we've witnessed this decade, your guess is as good as mine. Though borrow rates to short-sell (i.e., bet against) Regencell stock have shot into the stratosphere in recent days, overall short interest has been muted, which removes the notion of this move being propelled by a short squeeze.
More than likely, we've witnessed momentum-based risk-takers pile into what had been (prior to its 38-for-1 split) a relatively low-float stock. With more than 494 million shares now outstanding and the company's abysmal fundamental picture in plain sight, it's simply a matter of time before this fairy tale bubble implodes and shares plummet back below $1.
Caveat emptor!
Should you invest $1,000 in Regencell Bioscience right now?
Before you buy stock in Regencell Bioscience, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Regencell Bioscience wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to172%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025
Sean Williams has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Interactive Brokers Group and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends Broadcom and recommends the following options: long January 2027 $175 calls on Interactive Brokers Group and short January 2027 $185 calls on Interactive Brokers Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
33 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
2 Vanguard ETFs That Can Turn $300 per Month Into Over $1 Million
Investing a regular amount of money into the stock market each month can be an excellent way to grow your savings and build up a portfolio that's eventually worth $1 million or more. But it can be challenging to do, especially since you have to ensure you can continue to afford making monthly investments, and then picking which investments to make with that money. Amid volatile economic conditions, that's no easy task. You can, however, simplify the process by going with some solid exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that can diversify your portfolio and set you up for some great growth opportunities in the future. A couple of low-cost Vanguard ETFs to consider for this purpose include the Vanguard Growth Index Fund (NYSEMKT: VUG) and the Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund (NYSEMKT: VGT). Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » Here's why investing $300 per month into either one of these ETFs could put you on track to generating a $1 million portfolio in the future. Vanguard Growth Index Fund The Vanguard Growth Index Fund is a great, growth-focused ETF you can add to your portfolio. It charges an expense ratio of only 0.04%, which means you don't have to worry about high fees chipping away at your gains. What's attractive about this fund is that it focuses on large-cap growth stocks. These are the types of investments that can drive long-run returns for your portfolio and make the most of your money. Stocks such as Tesla, Amazon, and Nvidia are all among its top-10 holdings. These are leaders within their respective industries, and their businesses are synonymous with growth. With more than 160 stocks in total, this is a well-diversified ETF to simply buy and hold. It also yields around 0.5%. Over the past decade, the ETF has achieved total returns (which include dividend payments) of approximately 327%. That averages out to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.6%. But for the sake of being conservative, let's assume that its returns will slow down given how hot the market has been in the past few years and how it's reaching record levels. If the ETF averages a return of about 10% for the very long haul (which is in line with the S&P 500 's long-term average), then a $300 per-month investment could grow to more than $1 million after a period of 34 years. This would require investing in the ETF every month during that time frame. But by doing so, you can put yourself on a path to producing some fantastic returns thanks to the effects of compounding. VUG Total Return Level data by YCharts. Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund As terrific of a growth investment as the Vanguard Growth Index Fund has been in recent years, it still falls well short of the gains the Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund has produced during that stretch. At 543%, its 10-year total returns average out to an annual gain of 20.5%. That's a mind-boggling return, and it highlights just how impressive the stocks within this ETF have been. There will be some overlap between this fund and the growth ETF, but the big difference is there is heavier exposure to big tech. Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple account for a combined 45% of the Vanguard Information Technology ETF's total holdings, but they make up just around 32% of the growth ETF. That difference can be substantial over time, especially given how well a massive stock like Nvidia has performed. In 10 years, its returns have been truly exceptional, totaling 28,000%. Given Nvidia's size today as one of the most valuable companies in the world, odds are its returns will be far more modest over the next decade. While they may still be great, it's probably a good idea to factor in a healthy dose of conservatism with this ETF as well given how much of a boost Nvidia has given it in the past. Even though the ETF is focused on tech and growth, averaging 20% annual returns likely isn't going to be sustainable over the very long haul. The expectation of a 10% return may also be prudent with this ETF to ensure your expectations aren't set too high for future gains. As with the growth ETF, if you invest $300 per month into this fund, you can also be on the path to a $1 million portfolio. If this ETF continues to outperform the market, however, then it may take less than 34 years to get to $1 million. But by staying the course and investing regularly into this or the growth ETF, you can be in a good position for building up a solid portfolio over the long haul. The Vanguard Information Technology ETF charges an expense ratio of 0.09%, and while that's a bit higher than the growth ETF's fees, they aren't going to drastically alter your prospects for generating potentially life-changing returns from regularly investing in this fund. Should you invest $1,000 in Vanguard Index Funds - Vanguard Growth ETF right now? Before you buy stock in Vanguard Index Funds - Vanguard Growth ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vanguard Index Funds - Vanguard Growth ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to172%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. David Jagielski has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Tesla, and Vanguard Index Funds-Vanguard Growth ETF. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Globe and Mail
33 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
In the AI revolution, universities are up against the wall
Mark Kingwell is a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto. His latest book is Question Authority: A Polemic About Trust in Five Meditations. It's convocation season. Bored graduates everywhere will be forced to listen to earnest speeches about how they should make their way in a world short on decent jobs. I've given a couple of those orations myself. Here's the one I won't be giving this year but would have if asked. Hey guys! You've probably heard that philosophers are in the habit of declaring their discipline dead. Thinkers are forever claiming that everyone before them had the wrong ideas about time, being, or knowledge. Great – it's a vibrant patricidal enterprise. But I'm here today to tell you that philosophy is dead for good this time. So is humanistic education in general, maybe academia itself. The murderous force isn't just anti-elitist, Trump-driven depredation. No, as Nietzsche said of the death of god, we have done the killing. Smartness destroys from the inside out: The AI revolution has signalled the demise of the university as we know it. After all, how do we teach undergraduates philosophy, history or anything else when it's now so easy to fake the whole process? Students still think it might be wrong, or maybe risky, to have an algorithm write their essays wholesale. But increasingly they don't see what's wrong with using programs to take notes, summarize readings and create or correct first drafts. Reading, meanwhile, is tedious and hard, and so the idea of assigning entire books – even novels – is sliding out of academic fashion. Average attentions spans have shrunk from several minutes to about 40 seconds. You won't counter that by putting Aquinas's Summa or Spinoza's Ethics on the syllabus. At the same time, these same students resent knowing that professors might use countervailing programs to grade their work. They also dislike the idea that somebody in authority might consider them cheaters. Indeed, some students now resort to surveillance-society mechanisms, once the bugbear of free citizens everywhere, to prove that they are not cheating, including YouTube videos of them composing their guaranteed-human-origin essays. So: programs for recording screen activity or documenting keystrokes are now being asked to view performative acts of being-watched. And programs for cheating on essays confront programs designed to catch cheaters but also programs designed to counter the need for human grading altogether. These countervailing programs produce and consume each other; they watch and are watched, cheat and are cheated, pursue grades and are duly graded. I'm not the first to notice that there is no further need for human middle men here. Students and professors alike are extraneous to the system. A techno-bureaucratic loop enfolds them, then snips them off as messy loose ends. We have created the ultimate state of frictionless exchange, a circulating economy of the already-thought, the banal, the pre-digested, where every Google search leads to a fabricated source that eventually bounces back to base. Peak efficiency, with net gains in eliminated boredom. Yay! So why resist assimilation? Recently I sat in a seminar organized by my colleagues to consider ways of testing students in class, as a foil to chatbot cheating. The proposed tests involved various small-scale fact-finding exercises, truncated arguments, and the logic-skills equivalent of a magazine puzzle page. One professor suggested that actual written essays should be reserved only for upper-level undergraduates and graduate students, if anyone. Fine, I suppose, but how would those upper-level students ever learn how to write in the first place, let alone write well? Forget AI essay cheating. Basic writing ability, always prone to deterioration, is now disappearing faster than map-reading skills and short-term memory. You can no longer assume that first-year students know how to compose even the most basic 'hamburger' essay (bun, lettuce, tomato, patty, bun). And still we believe – do we not? – that clear writing is the foundation of clear thought. Alas, that faith no longer seems so warranted. Writing seems more and more surplus to requirements. It can be off-loaded as a dreary chore, like so much dirty laundry sent out for cleaning. I recently wondered, not for the first time, if I had been labouring under a mistaken notion of philosophy, and teaching it, all along. If the subject can be distilled down to a roster of positions, specific argumentative moves and technical terms – which is how I believe some of my colleagues see it – then we can indeed dispense with sustained discursive engagement, and the clunky old-fashioned fraud-prone essay with it. But then, what would education be like? What would it be for? Good questions. Maybe the current proclaimed academic death-rattle is actually an opportunity to go back to first principles, inside the walls and out. In my discipline's case, the issue is not so much the end of philosophy, in other words, but the ends of philosophy. Like most teachers of the subject, I have long been conflicted about our mechanisms of assessment. Essays are a slog for everyone, even when they're legit products of individual minds. In-person final exams can control for essay cheating, most of the time, but they are a poor method of gauging the depth of philosophical insight. The old joke from Annie Hall makes the point: 'I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam,' it goes. 'I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me.' Like many philosophy professors, I prefer discussion in seminars, close reading of textual passages, and face-to-face assessment over both essays and exams. I ask for short, ungraded weekly reflection papers that my students seem to enjoy writing and I certainly enjoy reading. But these small-bore tools are not scaleable for our vast budget-driven enrolments. And always, grades loom far larger than they should over the whole enterprise. Once you start questioning assessment, you slide very quickly into uncomfortable thoughts about the larger purpose of any teaching. The irony is doubled because asking 'What is the use of use?' is one of those typical philosophical moves. Updated version for the age of neo-liberal overproduction: What is the use of asking what is the use of use, when large language models can do it for you?' I admit I get impatient when, at this stage of things, people invoke some vague notion of distinctive humanness, a form of species-centric superiority. I mean those hand-wavy claims that there is something about what we humans do that is just, well, different from AI versions of things. Different and better. No AI could ever match the uniqueness of the human spirit! Well, maybe. But let's be serious: This line of argument is ideological special pleading. There are some 8.2 billion unique human souls on the planet. Yes, a minority break free of the sludge of mediocrity, and we celebrate them. We also cherish the experience of our own lives, however mundane. But we're now forced to realize that some, even many, sources of human pride can be practised as well, if not better, by non-human mechanisms. Art and poetry fall before the machines' totalizing recombinative invention. Even athletics, apparently deeply wedded to the human form, are being colonized by cyborg technology. You might think this is just griping from another worker whose sector is destined for obsolescence. True, neoliberal overproduction and dire job prospects have likely produced more philosophy teachers – and many more student essays – than the world needs. From this angle, AI's great academic replacement is just a market correction. It completes a decades-long self-inflicted irrelevance program, those thousands of punishing essays that nobody reads, the best ones published in journals that are, more and more, pay-as-you-go online boondoggles. I still think those abstruse debates are important, though, and you should too. We are at a transitional point that demands every tool of critical reflection, human or otherwise. Anxiety about the future of work and life is pitched high, for good reason. For now we are still mostly able to spot uncanny AI slop, bizarre search-engine confabulations, and bot-generated recommendations for books that have been invented by bots – presumably so that other bots can then not-read them, scrape the data for future reconstitution, and maybe submit unread book reports for academic credit somewhere. We can even, for the moment, recognize that non-bot government bans on actual books, and state-sponsored punishment of legacy liberal education, pose a threat to everyone's freedom. But I still think we are losing, in the current murk, something that only philosophy can provide. It's something that has always been posthuman in the dual sense of transcendent and transformative. I don't just mean a critical-thinking skill set, or body of facts, or even the basics of media literacy and fallacy-spotting – though these are essential tools for life. I mean, rather, the things that animate the hundreds of students who still come to our classes: the value of self-given meaning and purpose, the pleasure of being good at hard things for their sake alone, a consuming joy in the free play of imagination. A desire to flourish, and to bend the arc of history toward justice. I don't know if those things are exclusive to humans; I do know that they are threatened and in short supply among existing humans. The love of wisdom can't really be taught, for it is a turning of the soul toward the beautiful and good. You can't justify the value of that turning to someone who has not yet felt the necessary shift in value. That's the paradox of all philosophy, and of all philosophy teaching. There will be no exam after this lecture, graduates. The real test is no more, but also no less, than life itself. You are a speck of dust in an indifferent universe. Now make the most of it. Is AI dulling critical-thinking skills? As tech companies court students, educators weigh the risks Will AI go rogue? Noted researcher Yoshua Bengio launches venture to keep it safe Stopping the brain drain: U of T professor aims to launch 50 AI companies with new venture studio Axl AI adoption is upending the job market for entry-level workers In Imagination: A Manifesto, Ruha Benjamin argues that the Musks and Zuckerbergs of the world have usurped our ability to dream of better futures. But it doesn't have to be that way. She spoke with Machines Like Us about what could be done differently.
CTV News
37 minutes ago
- CTV News
SoftBank pitches US$1 trillion Arizona AI hub, Bloomberg News reports
SoftBank Group founder Masayoshi Son is envisaging setting up a US$1 trillion industrial complex in Arizona that will build robots and artificial intelligence, Bloomberg News reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. Son is seeking to team up with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) for the project, which is aimed at bringing back high-end tech manufacturing to the U.S. and to create a version of China's vast manufacturing hub of Shenzhen, the report said. SoftBank officials have spoken with U.S. federal and state government officials to discuss possible tax breaks for companies building factories or otherwise investing in the industrial park, including talks with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, the report said. SoftBank is keen to have TSMC involved in the project, codenamed Project Crystal Land, but it is not clear in what capacity, the report said. It is also not clear the Taiwanese company would be interested, it said. TSMC is already building chipmaking factories in the U.S. with a planned investment of $165 billion. Son is also sounding out interest among tech companies including Samsung Electronics, the report said. The plans are preliminary and feasibility depends on support from the Trump administration and state officials, it said. A commitment of $1 trillion would be double that of the $500 billion 'Stargate' project which seeks to build out data center capacity across the U.S., with funding from SoftBank, OpenAI and Oracle. SoftBank and TSMC declined to comment. The White House and U.S. Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The proposed scheme follows a series of big investment announcements SoftBank has made this year. In March it announced it would acquire U.S. semiconductor design company Ampere for $6.5 billion and in April said it would underwrite up to $40 billion of new investment in OpenAI, of which up to $10 billion would be syndicated to other investors. This week SoftBank raised $4.8 billion from a sale of shares in T-Mobile TMUS.O.
