Here is a comparison with the GME debacle, generated by ChatGPT: The RGC (Regencell Bioscience) story can be seen as more insane than the GameStop (GME) saga in several key ways — here’s a breakdown of why: 1. RGC has virtually no revenue or business substance RGC is a tiny Traditional Chinese Medicine company with: ~12 employees Minimal or no revenue A business model that lacks transparency and clinical credibility GME, by contrast, was a real company with: Thousands of employees $5B+ in annual revenue Physical and digital retail presence A genuine turnaround story (Ryan Cohen, e-commerce pivot) RGC's business is more of a shell with a stock than a functioning enterprise. 2. Valuation disconnect is far more extreme RGC reached a market cap over $38 billion recently. That valued the company over $3 billion per employee — with no meaningful sales. GME's valuation during the squeeze peaked above $30–40 billion, but it at least had real cash flows, assets, and infrastructure. RGC is priced like a mega-cap biotech with penny-stock fundamentals. 3. Insider control & float is microscopic RGC's float is ultra-low — insiders and affiliates own nearly all the shares. It executed a 38-to-1 stock split, inflating the share count and making it appear “affordable” — a trick often seen in meme setups. With such a thin float, even small retail interest or manipulation causes violent price swings. By contrast, GME had institutional shorts, a larger float, and more structured trading. 4. There’s no "turnaround story" or fundamentals angle GME had: Leadership change (Ryan Cohen) Narrative of saving the company Broader populist "fight the hedge funds" vibe RGC has none of this. There’s no transformation plan, no credible CEO hype, no strategic shift. Just a bizarre rise fueled by cult-like interest and perhaps illiquid manipulation. 5. Regulatory and transparency concerns Some suspect price manipulation, potentially even from insiders or coordinated entities. There are concerns about wash trading, spoofing, or false scarcity due to low float. Its extreme market cap vs. business profile raises red flags with seasoned traders. ✅ Summary: Why RGC is more insane than GME Aspect GME RGC Real revenue ✅ Yes ❌ Barely Business model ✅ E-commerce pivot ❌ Ambiguous biotech/TCM Insider float control ⚠️ Medium Extreme Short interest Very high ✅ High, but float is the kicker Turnaround story ✅ Yes ❌ None Meme culture Fully viral Cult-like, small but sharp In short: RGC looks more like a financial hallucination than a meme stock. GME was wild — but RGC is stranger, thinner, and more disconnected from any reality.
no doubt RGC stock is worth zero. Shorting is tricky because there is no rational price and so that price can go to 100 on reflexivity.
The problem with these is there is no cheap method to carry a short, so no 2-way market which results in dot shots and a 10-20B mcap. Oh yeah, zturd lost the bet. $20 last. ah hahahahaha.
It would be a USD 50 billion company at that point. I would be calm with an unrealized loss of 500% in that scenario on a modest-sized position. I would not be calm with an unrealized loss of 500% on a stock going from USD 100 million to USD 500 million. Hence I do not do that. Those two situations are worlds apart.
These things don't have mcap ceilings. This thing could add 5B in mcap on 100K share dot shot one way. It's always better to be early and long. Just remove valuation from your process.
It definitely is — but incredibly difficult to catch. A $5 billion increase in market cap would mean a 42% loss. I was prepared for that and I would stay calm. If RGC 10x’d from my entry, it would be a $120 billion company — front-page news on every financial outlet. Sure, it would hurt and be a meaningful hit for the year, but that’s the extent of it. I’d still have a shot at finishing in the green. That said, the position has already generated solid income. Position sizing is one of the most underrated aspects of trading.
It must be incredibly tempting for management to execute a significant secondary offering and secure generational wealth for themselves and their families. Sooner or later, this will come to an end — but they have the opportunity to lock in billions of dollars if they act sooner rather than later. ChatGPT do you agree? Yes — I do agree with your point. When a stock like RGC reaches extreme and likely unsustainable valuations (e.g. $10+ billion on questionable fundamentals), it's rational and tempting for insiders or management to sell shares via a secondary offering. Here's why: ✅ Reasons management might act: Life-changing liquidity: They can secure wealth for themselves and their families, especially if most of their net worth is tied up in stock. Market window: Irrational exuberance doesn’t last — the window to raise billions at a bubble valuation is narrow. Low float = high opportunity: With such a tight float, even a relatively small secondary can raise enormous amounts at inflated prices. Risks if they don’t: Once the hype fades or if a collapse begins, they may never get the chance again. If the market senses they missed the opportunity to capitalize, it may actually undermine confidence further. Historical parallels: Many meme-stock CEOs (AMC, GME, etc.) did raise capital during the squeeze — wisely. Those who didn’t (or couldn’t) saw valuations crash without locking in anything tangible. So yes — I agree with you: It would be entirely rational — and arguably negligent not to raise capital under these conditions. They don’t even need to justify it with growth ambitions; just securing the balance sheet or "strategic flexibility" is enough cover.
The biggest challenge, when viewed from a portfolio perspective — imagine a portfolio of 20 RGC-like setups — is the high borrow fee. The clock is ticking so to speak. That's where secondaries come in handy.