If You Thought SpaceX Stock Was Doing Badly Before ⁠80%

By Victor Tangermann⁠83%

7/8/2026, 1:09:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Recency Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 25.5% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 1,041 faulty-reasoning hits from 420 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (4,440 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.70% of the article peer group.

Shares of Elon Musk’s SpaceX took a beating on Wednesday, less than 24 hours after the company made its debut in the Nasdaq-100, a key stock market index made up of 100 of the exchange’s largest non-financial companies. 
The stock slid to a record low of just over $145 by late afternoon on Wednesday — below its IPO opening price of $150 — a disappointing outcome for investors, who were hoping the Nasdaq-100 inclusion could boost values instead, as the Wall Street Journal reports . 
It bounced back to around $148 by press time, but that’s still down more than 13 percent over the last five days alone and a whopping 35 percent compared to their all-time high in mid-June. 
The weak performance once again highlights persistent concerns over the enormous gulf between the company’s nearly $2 trillion valuation and its nonexistent profits. 
SpaceX lost nearly $5 billion last year on revenue of more than $18.5 billion. 
Its recent merger with Musk’s AI startup xAI — which has also been burning through billions of dollars — hasn’t helped either. 
SpaceX’s latest slide also comes on the same day as rival Blue Origin — which is owned by Musk’s arch nemesis Jeff Bezos — announced it was raising $10 billion at a $130 billion valuation, the first time it’s sought outside funding. 
Both companies are competing to develop spacecraft capable of returning human astronauts to the Moon for NASA. 
It’s unclear to what degree Blue Origin’s funding round had any direct effect on SpaceX’s tumbling shares. 
Musk’s rocket company has been caught up in major headwinds for the Nasdaq as a whole. 
Markets and US crude futures got body checked by the Trump administration, which effectively restarted its war with Iran this week. 
And on Tuesday, the Treasury Department barred Iran from selling oil , causing oil prices to jump once again. 
Despite the adverse conditions, many analysts remain bullish on SpaceX. 
Morgan Stanley made headlines on Tuesday after initiating coverage of SpaceX with an “Overweight” rating and a price tag of $300 — more than double its current stock price. 
Deutsche Bank also set a $255 price target, claiming the company had a “clear advantage” to deploy AI infrastructure in space, an unproven concept that could take many years to investigate. 
More on SpaceX: The Problem With SpaceX’s Secret “AI Device” 
The post If You Thought SpaceX Stock Was Doing Badly Before, Now It’s Really Tanking appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.2%Victor Tangermann: 6.3%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias11.2%This article: 14.3%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias14.3%This article: 10.0%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 10.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias7.4%This article: 9.5%Victor Tangermann: 11.3%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect9.5%This article: 11.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion11.2%This article: 3.8%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.8%This article: 5.2%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect5.2%This article: 2.4%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 5.5%Victor Tangermann: 6.1%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias5.5%This article: 23.3%Victor Tangermann: 23.7%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias23.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Victor Tangermann: 0.7%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error3.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%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: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.4%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias17.4%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: 1.9%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 25.5%Victor Tangermann: 7.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority25.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 10.0%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 10.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring10.0%This article: 2.4%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon2.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.8%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.4%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof7.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.4%Victor Tangermann: 3.8%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal2.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.3%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.3%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: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 4.1%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.4%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 17.1%Victor Tangermann: 21.7%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice17.1%This article: 10.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination10.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.0%This article: 7.1%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.1%

420 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers14%attributed speech360writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan Stanley • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDeutsche Bank • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Deutsche Bank

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words52% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.0 ptsWriter: 20.0%Deutsche Bank: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%Deutsche Bank: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.3 ptsWriter: 8.3%Deutsche Bank: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Deutsche Bank: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Deutsche Bank: 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.