Name changes as a bubble symptom

AI-fuelled name changes are sending tiny stocks soaring – but while it looks like bubble behaviour, the signal is noisy and mostly confined to microcaps rather than the market’s core.

Last week, former shoe company Allbirds announced it was pivoting to AI and changing its name to “NewBird AI.” The stock price promptly rose 582 per cent for the day. Then an unrelated second company announced it was changing its name from Myseum to Myseum.AI, and its price rose 129 per cent. How should we interpret these events? Has the world gone crazy? Are these the signs and portents that tell us that the AI bubble is upon us?

X

Continue to Website

Not so fast. Yes, corporate name changes are a signal of a possible AI bubble, and we saw precisely this pattern with internet stocks in the late 1990s. But in the grand scheme of things, these name changes are a pretty noisy signal. After all, these two companies have tiny market caps, and weird price moves often occur in microcaps. Thus, one argument is that the world has not gone crazy, but rather that microcap stocks have always been crazy.

When a company changes its name, it usually also changes its stated business strategy. I have no reason to doubt that these firms are sincerely attempting to pivot to AI. I’m also not claiming that these firms are necessarily overvalued, post-announcement. What’s implausible is the magnitude of the price change given the amount of new information released.

There are many possible symptoms of stock market bubbles. Some symptoms are large and important in dollar terms, such as market valuation ratios and aggregate issuance. Other symptoms are dramatic but minor in dollar terms, such as Super Bowl ads and closed-end fund premiums. Name changes are in this latter category. Yes, they are a symptom of bubbles, no, they are not an especially important symptom.

Name changes are a form of corporate “catering” to market sentiment. If the stock market rewards firms that possess characteristic X, firms will seek to acquire characteristic X in order to boost their share price. Here’s Baker and Wurgler (2013):

Name changes provide some of the simplest and most colourful examples of catering. In frictionless and efficient markets, of course, firm names are as irrelevant as dividends. But there is at least a modest fundamental cost of changing names, and perhaps through a name change a firm can create a salient association with a temporarily overpriced category of stocks.

Malkiel (1990) describes name changes around 1960:

Promoters, eager to satisfy the insatiable thirst of investors for the space-age stocks of the Soaring Sixties, created more new issues in the 1959–62 period than at any previous time in history … It was called the tronics boom, because the stock offerings often included some garbled version of the word “electronics” in their title, even if the companies had nothing to do with the electronics industry. Buyers of these issues didn’t really care what the companies made—so long as it sounded electronic, with a suggestion of the esoteric. For example, American Music Guild, whose business consisted entirely of the door-to-door sale of phonograph records and players, changed its name to Space-Tone before “going public.” The shares were sold to the public at 2 and, within a few weeks, rose to 14.

The most prominent study of name changes is Cooper, Dimitrov, and Rau (2001). In their paper “A Rose.com by any other name”, they study 95 firms in 1998-1999 that added “.com” to their names. Their findings:

We document a striking positive stock price reaction to the announcement of corporate name changes to Internet-related dotcom names. This “dotcom” effect produces cumulative abnormal returns on the order of 74 percent for the 10 days surrounding the announcement day. The effect does not appear to be transitory; there is no evidence of a post-announcement negative drift. The announcement day effect is also similar across all firms, regardless of the firm’s level of involvement with the Internet. A mere association with the Internet seems enough to provide a firm with a large and permanent value increase.

It’s worth noting that almost all of these 95 firms traded over the counter (pink sheets) instead of on major exchanges.

This pattern has repeated, albeit on a smaller scale, in various episodes of market mania in subsequent decades. For example, in 2017 and 2018, crypto was booming and it was desirable for firms to be perceived as being involved in bitcoin, blockchain, and fintech. Akyildirim, Corbet, Sensoy, and Yarovaya (2020) found 31 firms who changed their names in a “crypto-exuberant” fashion between 2015 and 2019. An example is Long Island Iced Tea Corp., whose stock price rose almost 300 per cent when it changed its name to Long Blockchain Corp. in December 2017. The company was listed on Nasdaq at the time, so you could argue that this episode is more important than the pink sheet episodes of the internet period.

Following various headlines about the territory of Greenland, we saw two firms change their names to include Greenland in March 2026. Another recent example of catering is the rise of “bitcoin treasury” or “digital asset treasury” firms. While most of these firms kept their old names, a few name changes occurred.

The rational explanation for these stock price changes is that the market is appropriately responding to material news about future corporate profits. Maybe the net present value of Long Island Iced Tea really did rise when it became Long Blockchain? One piece of evidence against this hypothesis is name confusion. When we observe a frenzy surrounding characteristic X, we see price reaction to companies changing their name to involve X, but we also see price reaction in companies that already have X in their name. I’ve previously discussed the fact that there are several companies with “quantum” in their name which are not involved in quantum computing but which experienced huge price appreciation in late 2024 when quantum computing got hot. Another example is the apparent confusion surrounding an industrial machinery company headquartered in New Jersey and named Greenland Technologies. The shares of this company, which has nothing to do with the territory of Greenland, gyrated in March 2025 and again in January 2026 in response to geopolitical news about Greenland.

If you think there is a stock market bubble due to X, you should ask two questions:

1. Are companies changing their names to be X-related?
2. Does the market reward name changes with higher stock prices?

In the tech-stock bubble, the answer to both was yes. What about today? It turns out that many companies have changed their names to be AI-related in the past three years. I was able to find 33 name changes involving AI themes since 2023 on major U.S. exchanges: four in 2023, seven in 2024, 17 in 2025, and five so far in 2026 including Allbirds and Myseum.

Table 1 shows a sampling of these stocks. You’ve probably never heard of them, because most of the companies that change their names are microcap stocks. Many of these firms pivoted from previously hot areas (such as NFTs or the metaverse) to the new hot area of AI. As far as I know, the name changes in Table 1 were not accompanied by eye-popping increases in stock prices.

Table 1: Selected name changes since 2023

Source: Acadian, based on data from Bloomberg.

What’s new is that for Allbirds and Myseum, we see higher stock prices on announcement. Why the change? One explanation is that Allbirds was already a household name due to its high consumer recognition and its previous status as a market darling in 2021 with over $3B in market cap. That is, Allbirds had all the prerequisites of being a meme stock.

The major question is this: does craziness in the price of microcap stocks imply that there is craziness in the price of megacap stocks such as Nvidia? Nvidia had a market cap of $4.8T while Allbirds had a post-announcement market cap of $148M, so you could argue that these two stocks might as well be on different planets. And judged on fundamentals, Nvidia looks nothing like a struggling microcap stock. For example, Nvidia has annual revenue of $216B while Myseum has an annual revenue of $550 (five hundred fifty dollars and zero cents).

While I think name-changing microcaps have limited relevance to Nvidia, I do not think they have zero relevance. After all, in 1999, Cisco was overpriced because investors were overvaluing all internet-related stocks. How could you tell Cisco was overpriced? Well, one clue was that internet-related stocks were acting crazy on the pink sheets. While these pink-sheet stocks were nothing like Cisco in most respects, they still provided clues about the type of stocks that investors liked. So, I don’t know if Nvidia is overpriced, but I’d say that name-changing is a relevant piece of data that should be part of the mosaic of information used to answer that question.

Are we currently in a stock market bubble? I doubt it, because I have yet to see a change in major indicators such as issuance behaviour. But the minor indicators have been piling up over the past two years, including the success of retail investors, the rise of brokerage stocks, and various violations of the law of one price. The market is getting frothy, at least at its fringes if not in its core.

By Owen A. Lamont, Ph.D., senior vice president, portfolio manager, research at Acadian Asset Management