MS NOW95%

Want a financial glow-up? Start with money fluency 91%

By Bianca Brosh0%

5/2/2026, 1:26:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 21.4% saturation with 191 hits. Analysis detected 1,804 faulty-reasoning hits from 892 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83.9% and a BS Rank of 91% (2,167 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.10% of the article peer group.

By 2030, women will control more than $113 trillion in global wealth, marking a massive and historic shift in financial influence. 
Yet while more women are shaping the future as founders, investors, philanthropists and leaders, fewer than one in three feel prepared to navigate complex financial priorities, according to research from HSBC. 
That’s why “Morning Joe” co-host and Know Your Value founder Mika Brzezinski recently joined Racquel Oden, Head of International Wealth and Private Banking at HSBC USA  as well as activist Monica Lewinsky  to host a special HSBC event in L.A., sharing what financial fluency looks like at every decade. 
“What fluency really means is knowing what to do, when to do it and how to do it,” Oden said. 
“That’s the space we’re all moving into  from literacy to fluency.” 
Over the past year, Know Your Value and HSBC launched two groundbreaking reports: “The Giving Shift: Global Living, Local Giving,” and more recently, “The Financial Glow Up: The Fluency Gap in Women’s Wealth,” based on conversations with more than 2,000 individuals, including over 1,000 women across generations and backgrounds. 
The latest report explored the gap between understanding money and knowing what to do and when to do it as life evolves. 
“In the moment of stress  of death, of destruction, of divorce, of loss  that’s when you need to step up for yourself and you do need to be [financially] fluent,” Brzezinski said. 
“I saw so many women doing what I did  apologizing or self-deprecating  we depreciate our value in real time when we talk that way, so I love the concept of celebrating our worth, learning to talk about money in real and tangible ways and shedding the negative psychological habits that cause us to avoid the subject.” 
Lewinsky, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and host of the hit podcast, “Reclaiming,” admitted that a negative money mindset held her back for years. 
“I developed an adversarial relationship with the idea of taking care of my money,” Lewinsky recalled. 
“I wish I had a relationship with money that wasn’t psychological.” 
According to “The Financial Glow Up” report, 43 percent of women are financially planning for other people  children, aging parents, or both  far more than men. 
Nearly 60 percent of women are primary caregivers, which directly impacts income and long-term planning. 
So, it’s no wonder that only 29 percent of women feel prepared for aging-related costs. 
In Lewinsky’s case, her journey in resilience and reinvention included periods of instability where she struggled to save money until her 40s. 
“I lost a lot of my earning years,” she said. 
“I definitely feel like being a woman had so much to do with what my experience was  even moments when I stepped back out into the public arena a little over 10 years ago, I was so conscious of appearing to make money.” 
It was not until she secured her podcast that Lewinsky embraced a more empowering perspective. 
“When we closed the [podcast]deal I said to the team, I want to help a lot of people, I want to move conversations forward and I want to make a ton of money,” she remarked. 
“That was a really big thing for me to be able to say  I deserve that financial freedom.” 
Likewise, Brzezinski urged other women to unapologetically talk about money, financial goals and what they deserve. 
“It’s important to be able to communicate effectively,” she said. 
“That is going to make you money; that is going to be able to make you get your value.” 
Even for HSBC’s Racquel Oden, finding her path to financial fluency  and realizing her potential  took time. 
“I certainly did not know my value, and I certainly did not have the answers to finances,” she recalled about her time working as young equities trader. 
“When I think about my younger self, I worked really hard to be just like the guys  that was the only way I was going to make it on Wall Street and be able to be on that desk and have a purpose and a place,” she said. 
“Now I realize today  you can bring that purposeful part, you can bring that lead with your heart and your mind  but bring your heart and it’s perfectly fine.” 
The outlook among the younger generations of women has driven Oden’s optimism. 
According to “The Financial Glow Up,” Gen Z and Millennial women reported higher financial confidence than Baby Boomers. 
“Their confidence on managing their finances is a very high number, close to 65 percent,” Oden said. 
“So, I’m telling you the future’s bright.” 
While Oden credited that trend in part to the democratization of knowledge available today, Brzezinski acknowledged the progress made by older generations to enable them with more options. 
“I look at what I hope for my daughters  and what I’m seeing for all of our daughters  is that long runway paved by us, those 50 over 50,” she said. 
“Where you can take the time to take time off, you can take the time to make mistakes, you can make investments in yourself and you can be mindful about your decisions, instead of scurrying with a ticking clock on your career and your body.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.3%Bianca Brosh: 1.5%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 5.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Bianca Brosh: 6.0%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 3.1%Bianca Brosh: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 4.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Bianca Brosh: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 1.7%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.2%Bianca Brosh: 3.6%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias7.2%This article: 2.5%Bianca Brosh: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect2.5%This article: 4.5%Bianca Brosh: 5.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%Bianca Brosh: 9.1%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias18.2%This article: 11.5%Bianca Brosh: 10.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias11.5%This article: 1.7%Bianca Brosh: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error1.7%This article: 4.9%Bianca Brosh: 2.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias4.9%This article: 3.7%Bianca Brosh: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Bianca Brosh: 6.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Bianca Brosh: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 5.5%Bianca Brosh: 2.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.9%Bianca Brosh: 11.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority16.9%This article: 10.5%Bianca Brosh: 8.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma10.5%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.9%Bianca Brosh: 15.5%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization15.9%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.8%Bianca Brosh: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.8%This article: 21.4%Bianca Brosh: 12.6%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion21.4%This article: 3.8%Bianca Brosh: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 12.1%Bianca Brosh: 6.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.1%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.6%Bianca Brosh: 12.6%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal18.6%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.0%Bianca Brosh: 6.0%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Bianca Brosh: 1.6%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground3.1%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Bianca Brosh: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote2.2%This article: 3.8%Bianca Brosh: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.2%Bianca Brosh: 8.0%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bianca Brosh: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.4%Bianca Brosh: 3.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.4%

892 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers56%attributed speech395writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageRacquel Oden • 20 words • 100.0% coverageRacquel Oden • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMika Brzezinski • 34 words • 100.0% coverageMika Brzezinski • 58 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Lewinsky • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Lewinsky • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Lewinsky • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Lewinsky • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Lewinsky • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Lewinsky • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMika Brzezinski • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMika Brzezinski • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRacquel Oden • 27 words • 0.0% coverageRacquel Oden • 49 words • 0.0% coverageRacquel Oden • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRacquel Oden • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRacquel Oden • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMika Brzezinski • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMika Brzezinski • 45 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mika Brzezinski

100%flagged-word coverage
199 attributed words40% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Quote-first Misdirection+17.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mika Brzezinski: 17.1%17.1%Indoctrination-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Mika Brzezinski: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Mika Brzezinski: 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.