Fortune52%

Anthropic and SpaceX just handed Google the biggest profit quarter in company history—on paper 73%

By Eva Roytburg94%

7/22/2026, 11:24:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Recency Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 67.9% saturation with 423 hits. Analysis detected 1,676 faulty-reasoning hits from 623 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.1% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,723 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.10% of the article peer group.

Alphabet made history Wednesday with a quarterly profit that stretched into 12 figures for the first time in the search giant’s history—and perhaps for the first time in any company’s history. 
Alphabet, the parent company of Google, grew its bottom line by 298% year-over-year in the second quarter, totaling an astounding $112.1 billion in net income. 
That’s more profit in three months than 459 of the Fortune 500 companies generate in top line revenue in a full year. 
What gives? 
Alphabet’s Q2 revenue increased by a very impressive 24%, to $119.8 billion, with the Google Cloud business reaching an 82% growth clip—results CEO Sundar Pichai called proof that the company’s “full stack approach to AI is delivering real, measurable value.” 
Well, that—plus $99 billion in additional (or “other”) income that’s not directly produced by Alphabet’s day-to-day business operations such as search advertising and YouTube subscriptions. 
A footnote in Alphabet’s Q2 earnings release provides a bit more insight about where these record-shattering profits came from. 
Alphabet booked $99 billion in “unrealized and realized” gains on the equity securities in its investment portfolio during the quarter—adding $77.1 billion to Alphabets overall net income after taxes, according. 
The investment windfall accounted for $6.26 of Alphabet’s $9.11 in earnings per share. 
Most of the $99 billion in “other income” is from Alphabet’s AI investments, primarily Anthropic and SpaceX. 
Though it’s unclear how much each of the individual investments contributed to the $99 billion gain, both companies saw their valuations soar in Q2. 
SpaceX, in which Google owned a roughly 6% stake at the end of 2025, went public in early June at a valuation of $1.77 trillion, up sharply from the $400 billion valuation it had as a private company a year ago. 
Anthropic, meanwhile, saw its private-market valuation jump from $350 billion to $965 billion in the same period. 
Those massive paper gains have bolstered Alphabet’s investment portfolio and flowed through to its bottom line. 
Alphabet’s enormous paper windfall is the result of a prescient bet on Anthropic that began in April 2023, with an initial $300 million investment into Anthropic that has since grown to $13.3 billion, plus commitments of up to $30 billion more. 
As part of the arrangement, Anthropic has committed to purchasing at least five gigawatts of computing capacity from Google Cloud; roughly the output of five nuclear reactors, and enough electricity to power around four million homes. 
That spending flows into the very segment Wall Street watched Wednesday–that 82% growth Cloud growth. 
Despite the record results, shares of Alphabet fell 3% in after-hours trading on Wednesday, as investors fretted about the company’s rising capital expenditures (Alphabet upped its planned 2026 spending to a range of $195 billion to $205 billion, from its previous estimate of $180 billion to $190 billion) and fierce competition facing its Gemini family of AI models. 
And while the company’s AI investments delivered eye-popping net income numbers during the quarter, they may also raise circularity concerns. 
Each side of the relationship reinforces the other: Alphabet’s capital helps push Anthropic’s valuation higher; meanwhile, Anthropic turns around and spends billions of what it raised on Google Cloud computing power, helping to juice that blowout Cloud growth investors saw on Wednesday. 
So the same dollars go in a loop: Google invests in Anthropic, Anthropic pays Google for computing, Anthropic’s valuation climbs, and Google books the climb as earnings. 
“It’s interesting that they’re able to control or influence the value of one of their own assets,” Robert Willens, the tax and accounting consultant, told Fortune in April , when a smaller Anthropic markup drove nearly half of Alphabet’s first-quarter profit. 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Eva Roytburg: 3.5%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 13.6%Eva Roytburg: 5.0%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias13.6%This article: 14.8%Eva Roytburg: 7.3%Fortune: 3.2%Availability Heuristic14.8%This article: 4.0%Eva Roytburg: 1.7%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 6.6%Eva Roytburg: 4.3%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Eva Roytburg: 8.8%Fortune: 6.8%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.9%Fortune: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 1.8%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Eva Roytburg: 1.4%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect6.6%This article: 6.4%Eva Roytburg: 2.2%Fortune: 3.2%Optimism Bias6.4%This article: 9.6%Eva Roytburg: 4.2%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 14.8%Eva Roytburg: 6.9%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 1.2%Fortune: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.8%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.8%Eva Roytburg: 4.0%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 1.7%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.0%Eva Roytburg: 7.1%Fortune: 4.9%Appeal to Authority13.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 3.5%Fortune: 2.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 4.1%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 11.1%Eva Roytburg: 5.7%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning11.1%This article: 2.7%Eva Roytburg: 9.8%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization2.7%This article: 3.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.7%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring3.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.8%Fortune: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%Eva Roytburg: 6.2%Fortune: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 3.2%Eva Roytburg: 0.7%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 9.1%Eva Roytburg: 3.2%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.1%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.9%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.9%Eva Roytburg: 2.1%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division5.9%This article: 2.2%Eva Roytburg: 1.7%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.4%Eva Roytburg: 5.1%Fortune: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.4%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.6%Eva Roytburg: 1.4%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote6.6%This article: 6.6%Eva Roytburg: 2.7%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 67.9%Eva Roytburg: 20.9%Fortune: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice67.9%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eva Roytburg: 0.0%Fortune: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

623 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.6%attributed speech582writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Willens • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Robert Willens

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Robert Willens: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Robert Willens: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-72.7 ptsWriter: 72.7%Robert Willens: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.