ZeroHedge⁠72%

Goldman: "We Haven't Seen Panic On The Desk, Yet" ⁠84%

By Tyler Durden⁠63%

7/7/2026, 5:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 136 hits. Analysis detected 968 faulty-reasoning hits from 136 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,697 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.10% of the article peer group.

It was an "ugly session" the Goldman trading desk writes in its post-mortem note (available here for pro subs), with focus on spillover weakness in the global AI complex following profit taking in Samsung (-9% in Korea) on strong but not strong enough preliminary results (record operating profit, albeit slight revenue miss to buyside bogeys) plus news that DeepSeek will start developing its own AI Chips. 
As expected, high-beta momentum traded down -6% with little to no signs of defense in tech. 
According to Goldman TMT specialist Peter Bartlett, "we've noted fundamental view of the group remains positive (particularly among Tech specialist community), however buying/defense has gotten more "selective" in recent weeks (which came off a feverish pace of buying in May / 1st hour of June). 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 93.4%Tyler Durden: 7.7%ZeroHedge: 7.8%Confirmation Bias93.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.6%ZeroHedge: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 4.6%ZeroHedge: 4.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.1%ZeroHedge: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 11.8%Tyler Durden: 1.4%ZeroHedge: 1.4%Hindsight Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.8%ZeroHedge: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Tyler Durden: 10.8%ZeroHedge: 10.8%Framing Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.5%ZeroHedge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 33.1%Tyler Durden: 2.0%ZeroHedge: 2.1%Optimism Bias33.1%This article: 55.1%Tyler Durden: 3.7%ZeroHedge: 3.8%Pessimism Bias55.1%This article: 60.3%Tyler Durden: 11.1%ZeroHedge: 11.1%Negativity Bias60.3%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.4%ZeroHedge: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.1%ZeroHedge: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.2%ZeroHedge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 33.1%Tyler Durden: 1.3%ZeroHedge: 1.3%In-Group Bias33.1%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.0%ZeroHedge: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.8%ZeroHedge: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 39.7%Tyler Durden: 3.2%ZeroHedge: 3.3%Recency Bias39.7%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.4%ZeroHedge: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.6%ZeroHedge: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 6.2%ZeroHedge: 6.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.2%ZeroHedge: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.4%ZeroHedge: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.3%ZeroHedge: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 33.1%Tyler Durden: 6.7%ZeroHedge: 6.7%Hasty Generalization33.1%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.8%ZeroHedge: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 5.1%ZeroHedge: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.5%ZeroHedge: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 48.5%Tyler Durden: 5.4%ZeroHedge: 5.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)48.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.7%ZeroHedge: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.2%ZeroHedge: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 100.0%Tyler Durden: 2.7%ZeroHedge: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)100.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.2%ZeroHedge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 4.1%ZeroHedge: 4.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.6%Tyler Durden: 1.9%ZeroHedge: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 93.4%Tyler Durden: 11.2%ZeroHedge: 11.2%Biased Writer Voice93.4%This article: 48.5%Tyler Durden: 1.5%ZeroHedge: 1.5%Indoctrination48.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.5%ZeroHedge: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.8%ZeroHedge: 2.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 48.5%Tyler Durden: 0.9%ZeroHedge: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…48.5%

136 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers40%attributed speech82writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Goldman • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 66 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coveragePeter Bartlett • 45 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Peter Bartlett

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words83% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+0.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Peter Bartlett: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-80.5 ptsWriter: 80.5%Peter Bartlett: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -80.5 ptsWriter: 80.5%Peter Bartlett: 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.