BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 39.8% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 1,394 faulty-reasoning hits from 405 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.5% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,264 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.20% of the article peer group.

Tech companies are running hot, with Wall Street investors sustaining multi-trillion dollar valuations despite subdued earnings. 
Companies heavily invested in AI are particularly challenged on that front, thanks to heavy data center spending that isn't yet  and may ever  result in sizable profits. 
The gap between those companies' valuations and their ability to actually make money continues to grow at a breakneck pace, terrifying analysts. 
The S&P is up a whopping nine percent so far this year, wrapping up its best quarter since 2020 at the end of last month, as Fortune reports. 
But what comes up must come down. 
In a Tuesday note, Bank of America warned that "speculation is hitting extreme levels as high multiple stocks have gapped up demonstrably, an event that has historically preceded a valuation 'snapback.'" 
In other words, Wall Street could be in for a nasty reality check. 
Meanwhile, experts warn that the US economy could be in an even worse shape than right before the Great Depression of the late 1920s. 
As the Telegraph's economics columnist Russ Mould pointed out, US stocks are currently priced on average 41 times their average earnings over the last decade, an indicator called the Shiller CAPE ratio. 
To put that number into perspective, the ratio was just 32.5 on Black Tuesday, the day of the worst financial disaster in modern history almost 100 years ago. 
The fretting comes after some major turbulence. 
A major sell-off rocked the S&P 500 towards the end of June, wiping out hundreds of billions of dollars in market value. 
Even Musk's SpaceX, which had gone public mere weeks earlier and is now top-heavy with AI spending itself, was caught up in the downturn, plummeting back down to its starting price of $150. 
International markets have also seen massive swings, particularly in Asia, which could indicate troubling days ahead. 
"This volatility is, in our view, evidence of excessive froth and calls into the question the sustainability of this rally," Capital Economics analysts told Fortune. 
Expect turbulence. 
For the time being, many investors are as optimistic as ever. 
Just this week, SpaceX received extremely bullish ratings from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, with price targets of $300  twice the space company's current share price  and $205, respectively. 
More on the AI bubble: There’s an Urgent Sign of an Impending Market Collapse 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.2%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 5.7%Confirmation Bias6.2%This article: 14.8%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 1.7%Anchoring Bias14.8%This article: 20.0%Victor Tangermann: 5.3%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic20.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Victor Tangermann: 11.2%Futurism: 11.4%Framing Effect13.1%This article: 3.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Victor Tangermann: 2.7%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 18.8%Victor Tangermann: 5.7%Futurism: 4.2%Pessimism Bias18.8%This article: 24.2%Victor Tangermann: 22.4%Futurism: 22.3%Negativity Bias24.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.2%Recency Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.8%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 39.8%Victor Tangermann: 8.1%Futurism: 7.0%Appeal to Authority39.8%This article: 3.5%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 2.5%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 5.7%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.6%Slippery Slope5.7%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.5%Victor Tangermann: 9.4%Futurism: 10.4%Hasty Generalization21.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.7%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.2%Bandwagon7.7%This article: 24.9%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.3%Appeal to Emotion24.9%This article: 9.9%Victor Tangermann: 1.8%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question9.9%This article: 24.4%Victor Tangermann: 3.5%Futurism: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)24.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.8%Futurism: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.5%Anecdotal24.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.8%Victor Tangermann: 3.0%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.6%Victor Tangermann: 4.0%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote13.6%This article: 6.7%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection6.7%This article: 26.4%Victor Tangermann: 21.5%Futurism: 20.6%Biased Writer Voice26.4%This article: 2.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

405 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers22%attributed speech317writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageBank of America • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageRuss Mould • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCapital Economics • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bank of America

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words35% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+92.4 ptsWriter: 7.6%Bank of America: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.8 ptsWriter: 33.8%Bank of America: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Bank of America: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Bank of America: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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