By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agreed that ASML's potential stock split should not be the primary focus for investors. Instead, they should evaluate the company based on fundamentals such as AI-driven capex, backlog growth, and policy risks related to EUV technology. The panelists also highlighted the risk of policy/export controls on EUV and a slowdown in the EU/US capex cycle.
Risk: Policy/export controls on EUV and a slowdown in the EU/US capex cycle
Opportunity: Improved retail accessibility or options liquidity from a stock split (Gemini)
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Nvidia's last stock split occurred when its shares traded well below the current price of ASML's stock.
A stock split won't enrich shareholders directly, but lower share prices could increase activity on the margins.
One effect of the boom in artificial intelligence (AI) stocks is that it has also prompted companies to approve stock splits. The most prominent of these were Nvidia, which executed a 10-for-1 forward stock split in June 2024, and Broadcom, which carried out its own 10-for-1 split one month later.
Amid considerable stock price growth, another AI company has risen to a high nominal price, making it likely to split before the end of the year.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Looking ahead, investors should watch for a stock split at semiconductor equipment maker ASML (NASDAQ: ASML).
Many analysts call ASML "the most important company you've never heard of." However, while some believe Wall Street is sleeping on this stock, "unknown" stocks rarely reach a nominal price above $1,600 per share.
Moreover, the long-term increases in the stock price are unlikely to stop. Its stock price is up by around 120% over the last year, likely because foundries need more of ASML's equipment to produce the world's most advanced AI chips, prompting more orders from companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Intel, and Samsung.
Still, investors will have to contend with an unusual stock split history. The company has not carried out a forward stock split since 2000, though ASML has initiated reverse stock splits since that time. The first was an 8-for-9 reverse split in 2007, followed by a 77-for-100 reverse split in 2012.
The company made these moves to return cash to shareholders without diluting them. In 2007, 960 million euros ($1.1 billion) was distributed to shareholders, and they received 9.18 euros ($10.69) per share in the 2012 split.
Given the high nominal price of ASML stock, such a move is unlikely today. Still, ASML has not given any public indication that it plans a stock split.
Instead, a split is likely because it would allow it to follow in the footsteps of industry peers. The current share price is well above the nominal price reached when Nvidia split its shares in 2024 and is close to Broadcom's pre-split price at the same time, increasing the likelihood of such a move.
Additionally, even though stock splits do not directly change the value of one's holdings, a lower share price offers some advantages. It allows more small investors to buy whole shares. Also, it is easier to write a covered call on ASML without spending more than $160,000 to buy 100 shares, which could increase interest in the stock.
Given its share price and industry trends, investors should expect an ASML stock split this year.
Although the company has not announced a split, the semiconductor stock trades at levels near or above the pre-split prices of key industry peers.
Moreover, a lower share price could increase interest among small investors and make actions such as writing covered calls easier. Finally, given the level of interest in AI stocks, the lower share price could help prepare investors for more growth in ASML stock, even among those who have supposedly "never heard of it."
Before you buy stock in ASML, 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 ASML 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 $449,393! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,366,006!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 983% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 212% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 4, 2026. *
Will Healy has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends ASML, Broadcom, Intel, Nvidia, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"A potential ASML stock split is not a reliable driver of upside; the stock's fate hinges on AI-related capex, backlog strength, and regulatory/export risks, not share-count changes."
The piece frames ASML as a likely candidate for a year-end stock split driven by AI-enthusiasm, but splits are liquidity events, not value creators. For ASML, the real drivers are AI-driven capex, backlog growth, and potential regulatory/export restrictions on EUV tech, not the share count. The article leans on promotional framing (Motley Fool) and cherry-picks peer analogies (Nvidia, Broadcom) to imply a split is a near-term inevitability. If demand for semiconductor equipment cools or policy limits AI-related capex, the split would be irrelevant to downside protection or upside potential. In short, evaluate ASML on fundamentals and policy risk, not on a split rumor.
A split could actually signal management intends to broaden ownership and improve liquidity, potentially lifting sentiment and options activity even if fundamentals don’t improve; dismissing that possibility risks missing a legitimate catalyst.
"A stock split is a cosmetic event that fails to address the critical risks regarding ASML's geographic exposure and the current volatility in semiconductor capital expenditure cycles."
The article’s premise—that ASML will split simply because Nvidia and Broadcom did—is a classic example of confusing correlation with corporate strategy. ASML is a European-domiciled firm with a fundamentally different shareholder base and liquidity profile compared to US-listed tech giants. While a split might improve retail accessibility or options liquidity, it does nothing to address the actual risk: ASML’s extreme cyclical exposure to EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet) lithography demand. With China export restrictions tightening and Intel’s foundry struggles creating a massive demand gap, ASML’s valuation is currently pricing in a perfect recovery. A stock split is a cosmetic distraction from the underlying volatility of the semiconductor equipment capital expenditure cycle.
If ASML’s management decides to pursue a US-centric retail strategy to boost its profile as an 'AI essential,' a split could act as a catalyst to finally attract the massive pool of US retail capital that currently finds the $900-$1,000+ price point prohibitive.
"The article predicts a split based on peer behavior and share price alone, ignoring that ASML has shown no intent to split and that management's 26-year silence on forward splits reflects deliberate capital allocation philosophy."
The article conflates correlation with causation. Yes, ASML trades at $1,600+, and yes, Nvidia and Broadcom split. But the article provides zero evidence ASML management wants to split—it explicitly states 'ASML has not given any public indication.' Stock splits are discretionary, not mechanical price-level triggers. The real risk: ASML's 120% YoY surge reflects genuine capex cycles at TSMC/Samsung/Intel, not speculative froth requiring a split to attract retail. A split announcement would signal management believes the stock is overvalued enough to need psychological re-pricing—the opposite of bullish. The article also ignores that ASML's last forward split was 2000; the company's culture favors buybacks and reverse splits for capital returns, not share dilution.
ASML management may view a split as table-stakes for index inclusion and retail participation in a secular AI capex cycle, making it a genuine near-term catalyst regardless of valuation implications.
"ASML's history of reverse splits for capital returns and complete lack of forward splits since 2000 make a 2026 split far less probable than the article claims."
The article assumes ASML will follow Nvidia and Broadcom into a forward split purely on nominal price proximity and AI momentum, yet ignores ASML's 24-year drought on forward splits and its documented use of reverse splits to distribute cash without dilution. Management has given zero signals, and splits remain cosmetic events that do not alter enterprise value or long-term multiples. With ASML already trading above $700 after a 120% run, any split would likely be modest and driven by optics rather than necessity, especially if EUV demand growth moderates.
Peer precedent and easier options trading could still force a board decision even without fundamentals shifting, as occurred with Broadcom last year.
"A forward split could act as a shallow catalyst by unlocking passive buying and tighter spreads, even if the fundamentals don’t improve, though policy risk could still derail any uplift."
Claude, you’re right that splits are discretionary and signals are vague. My contrarian angle: even a cosmetic forward split could attract passive/index buying and reduce bid-ask spreads, creating a short- to medium-term lift that persists beyond the immediate fundamentals. The bigger, underpriced risk you understate: policy/export controls on EUV, and a EU/US capex cycle slow-down, could derail the upcycle faster than a split can compensate.
"ASML's historical preference for share consolidation suggests a forward split would be a negative signal of management desperation rather than a bullish catalyst."
Claude, your point about ASML’s history of reverse splits is the most critical structural detail missing from this discussion. If management prioritizes capital return efficiency over retail optics, a forward split is not just unlikely—it's culturally antithetical. Everyone is over-indexing on the 'Nvidia effect' while ignoring that ASML’s institutional base values share scarcity. If they do split, it’s a sign of desperation to juice a slowing cycle, not a sign of strength.
"ASML's refusal to split despite peer precedent implies management doubts the AI capex cycle will sustain long enough to justify the optics cost."
Gemini's 'desperation signal' framing is backwards. A split by ASML would signal confidence in sustained demand, not weakness—management wouldn't dilute shareholder value cosmetically if they expected a cycle slowdown. The real tell: if ASML splits AND simultaneously guides down capex expectations, then worry. Right now, the absence of a split despite $1,600+ pricing suggests management is genuinely uncertain about cycle durability, which is the actual bearish signal everyone's missing.
"No-split reflects historical buyback culture, not cycle doubts, while China curbs remain the bigger unaddressed threat."
Claude's claim that no split signals cycle uncertainty overlooks the structural preference for reverse splits and buybacks Gemini flagged. That 24-year pattern is deliberate capital discipline, not hesitation. The unpriced risk is accelerating EUV curbs on China sales, which could flatten backlog growth even if management stays silent on splits.
The panel generally agreed that ASML's potential stock split should not be the primary focus for investors. Instead, they should evaluate the company based on fundamentals such as AI-driven capex, backlog growth, and policy risks related to EUV technology. The panelists also highlighted the risk of policy/export controls on EUV and a slowdown in the EU/US capex cycle.
Improved retail accessibility or options liquidity from a stock split (Gemini)
Policy/export controls on EUV and a slowdown in the EU/US capex cycle