CNBC54%

Morgan Stanley says buy these stocks ahead of their earnings, before it's too late 94%

By Michael Bloom74%

7/25/2026, 12:47:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Anchoring Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 38.3% saturation with 256 hits. Analysis detected 1,616 faulty-reasoning hits from 669 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88.7% and a BS Rank of 94% (1,512 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.10% of the article peer group.

There's still a host of stocks with plenty of upside heading into earnings, according to Morgan Stanley. 
The investment bank says companies like Alibaba have more room to run ahead of their next quarterly reports. 
Other stocks rated overweight at Morgan Stanley and screened by CNBC Pro include: Grab, Natera , Cadence Design Systems and Apple. 
Alibaba Shares of the China global online marketplace are too compelling to ignore, the investment bank says. 
Analyst Gary Yu is sticking with Alibaba as a top pick ahead of earnings in late August. 
"We expect Alibaba, having the largest cloud infrastructure in China, to win share in the current evolutionary AI cycle in China," he wrote. 
Morgan Stanley says it also sees other positive catalysts such as "strong cash flow-generating capabilities, dividends and continued share buybacks," he added. 
Still, Yu recently lowered his price target to $180 per share from $190, but says investors should nonetheless buy the stock. 
Alibaba is up 17% this month. 
Grab The Southeast Asia ride hailing and grocery/food delivery company is firing on all cylinders, Morgan Stanley says. 
Analyst Divya Gangahar sees several positives ahead of the company's quarterly results in early August, including improving demand and accelerating growth. 
"We expect a strong quarter with 2Q rev. +22% and adj. 
EBITDA US$166mn," she said. 
The Wall Street bank also raised its price target to $6.25 per share from $5.90. 
"We also see room for further buybacks and view the risk-reward as very attractive," she went on. 
Shares are down 12% this month. 
Cadence Design Systems The electronic automation systems software company is undervalued, according to a team led by analyst Lee Simpson. 
"While we see a decent chance of another guidance raise this quarter, we think this is largely appreciated by the market," he wrote ahead of earnings on Monday. 
Simpson says Agentic AI is the "key to their moat." 
Meanwhile, Morgan Stanley urged investors to remain calm and buy the dip. 
"We reiterate our OW rating and PT of $370, as we see solid margin/earnings recovery next year on deal integration, and early physical AI momentum," he said. 
The stock is down 13% so far in July. 
Natera "Net, we're increasing our NTRA price target to $310 from $250 prior, reflecting a ~15x EV / '26 Sales multiple (a premium to precision oncology peers given NTRA's robust growth profile and market leadership) and representing a change in methodology emphasis where we now value the stock primarily on sales multiple vs. peers supported by DCF, rather than primarily on DCF." 
Cadence Design Systems "While we see a decent chance of another guidance raise this quarter, we think this is largely appreciated by the market ... 
We reiterate our OW rating and PT of $370, as we see solid margin/earnings recovery next year on deal integration, and early physical AI momentum ... 
Agentic AI as key to their moat." 
Grab "Grab will report its 2Q results on Aug 4. 
We see upside risk ... 
We also see room for further buybacks and view the risk-reward as very attractive ... 
We expect a strong quarter with 2Q rev. +22% and adj. 
EBITDA US$166mn ... 
Demand trends remain stable, supported by a more diversified platform (e.g., multiple price points, GrabMart) as well as a rational competitive environment." 
Alibaba "We see fundamental business reacceleration with improvement in monetization. 
▪The online regulatory environment appears to be easing; we view Alibaba as a key beneficiary as a China proxy. 
▪The potential spinoff of the proprietary chip business, T-Head, could unlock value... 
▪Strong cash flow-generating capabilities, dividends, and continued share buybacks could provide downside support." 
Apple "Apple's fundamentals remain very solid, but with shares trading near all-time highs, the tactical setup into earnings is neutral/tougher as it requires zero blemishes across the board. 
We continue to believe that Apple fundamentals are very strong, with myriad price hikes likely to drive upside to revenue and EPS over the next 6-18 months." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.5%Michael Bloom: 7.7%CNBC: 4.6%Confirmation Bias10.5%This article: 18.8%Michael Bloom: 7.2%CNBC: 1.9%Anchoring Bias18.8%This article: 6.3%Michael Bloom: 1.1%CNBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic6.3%This article: 12.6%Michael Bloom: 1.5%CNBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic12.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.3%CNBC: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Michael Bloom: 9.8%CNBC: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias16.3%This article: 2.1%Michael Bloom: 1.2%CNBC: 6.5%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 1.8%Michael Bloom: 1.3%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion1.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.4%CNBC: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 38.3%Michael Bloom: 25.4%CNBC: 7.7%Optimism Bias38.3%This article: 4.2%Michael Bloom: 2.1%CNBC: 2.1%Pessimism Bias4.2%This article: 0.9%Michael Bloom: 1.3%CNBC: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.2%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.9%CNBC: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Michael Bloom: 3.9%CNBC: 2.9%Halo Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Michael Bloom: 3.6%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.8%CNBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.0%Michael Bloom: 3.0%CNBC: 5.0%Appeal to Authority13.0%This article: 4.2%Michael Bloom: 0.7%CNBC: 1.0%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 9.3%Michael Bloom: 1.4%CNBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning9.3%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 2.5%CNBC: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 1.6%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.3%Michael Bloom: 1.2%CNBC: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 7.2%Michael Bloom: 1.2%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question7.2%This article: 13.6%Michael Bloom: 2.3%CNBC: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.8%Michael Bloom: 0.5%CNBC: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.8%This article: 1.9%Michael Bloom: 0.4%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature1.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.5%CNBC: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.1%Michael Bloom: 0.3%CNBC: 1.3%Anecdotal3.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.2%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.5%Michael Bloom: 2.8%CNBC: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.1%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 10.7%CNBC: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.3%CNBC: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.3%Michael Bloom: 0.9%CNBC: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice10.3%This article: 3.4%Michael Bloom: 0.3%CNBC: 0.9%Indoctrination3.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Bloom: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 29.7%Michael Bloom: 4.8%CNBC: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…29.7%

669 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers40%attributed speech403writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageMorgan Stanley • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMorgan Stanley • 17 words • 100.0% coverageGary Yu • 17 words • 100.0% coverageGary Yu • 23 words • 0.0% coverageGary Yu • 22 words • 100.0% coverageGary Yu • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Stanley • 18 words • 100.0% coverageDivya Gangahar • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDivya Gangahar • 11 words • 100.0% coverageDivya Gangahar • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageDivya Gangahar • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageLee Simpson • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLee Simpson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Stanley • 12 words • 100.0% coverageLee Simpson • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 62 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Morgan Stanley

100%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words24% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +50.3 ptsWriter: 23.6%Morgan Stanley: 73.8%73.8%Biased Writer Voice+18.5 ptsWriter: 7.7%Morgan Stanley: 26.2%26.2%Indoctrination+18.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Morgan Stanley: 18.5%18.5%

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.