ZeroHedge⁠72%

Quant Funds Hammered With Biggest Drawdown Since August 2025 ⁠95%

By Tyler Durden⁠63%

7/8/2026, 11:15:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 83.6% saturation with 46 hits. Analysis detected 401 faulty-reasoning hits from 55 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,143 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.80% of the article peer group.

The quant rout is getting worse. 
One week ago we warned that quant funds were getting slammed, as they are having a very difficult time adapting to what is increasingly a market that is anything but normal. 
We pointed to the exponential surge in the Kospi... 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 72.7%Tyler Durden: 7.7%ZeroHedge: 7.8%Confirmation Bias72.7%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.6%ZeroHedge: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Tyler Durden: 4.6%ZeroHedge: 4.6%Availability Heuristic16.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.1%ZeroHedge: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.4%ZeroHedge: 1.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.8%ZeroHedge: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 32.7%Tyler Durden: 10.8%ZeroHedge: 10.8%Framing Effect32.7%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: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.0%ZeroHedge: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Tyler Durden: 3.7%ZeroHedge: 3.8%Pessimism Bias10.9%This article: 83.6%Tyler Durden: 11.1%ZeroHedge: 11.1%Negativity Bias83.6%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: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.3%ZeroHedge: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%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: 83.6%Tyler Durden: 3.2%ZeroHedge: 3.3%Recency Bias83.6%This article: 56.4%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Primacy Effect56.4%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: 67.3%Tyler Durden: 6.7%ZeroHedge: 6.7%Hasty Generalization67.3%This article: 16.4%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Red Herring16.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.8%ZeroHedge: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.4%Tyler Durden: 5.1%ZeroHedge: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion16.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.5%ZeroHedge: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 56.4%Tyler Durden: 5.4%ZeroHedge: 5.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)56.4%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: 16.4%Tyler Durden: 2.2%ZeroHedge: 2.2%Anecdotal16.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 83.6%Tyler Durden: 2.7%ZeroHedge: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)83.6%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: 16.4%Tyler Durden: 4.1%ZeroHedge: 4.1%Unattributed Quote16.4%This article: 16.4%Tyler Durden: 1.9%ZeroHedge: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection16.4%This article: 83.6%Tyler Durden: 11.2%ZeroHedge: 11.2%Biased Writer Voice83.6%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.5%ZeroHedge: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%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: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.9%ZeroHedge: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

55 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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