CNBC67%

We're adding to our position in a chipmaker as the AI trade regains its footing 72%

By Jeff Marks70%

8/5/2026, 5:35:29 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Loss Aversion, and Anchoring Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 23.4% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 905 faulty-reasoning hits from 465 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.3% and a BS Rank of 72% (8,562 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.00% of the article peer group.

Shortly after the opening bell, we will buy 100 shares of Intel at roughly $97.97. 
Following the trade, Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust will own 1,300 shares of INTC, increasing its weight in the portfolio to about 3.20% from 3%. 
After gaining 10% in Tuesday's session, Intel shares are down slightly in premarket trading following a strong AMD quarter that failed to exceed a high bar. 
But with the AI trade on better footing and AMD confirming that central processing unit (CPU) demand is growing well beyond internal expectations, we're scooping up more Intel shares to further build out the position and lower our average cost basis. 
While Intel shares have recovered significantly from the levels where we made our lowest buy about a week and a half ago, the stock remains well below the after-hours levels it reached on July 23, when Intel delivered a fantastic earnings report . 
The stock traded as high as about $113 that evening before giving back all its gains and dropping 7% to $92 the next day during regular trading. 
As you may recall, we struggled with the reasons behind that nasty reversal. 
Was it the CFO indicating they may tap the capital markets to fund its significant increase in capital expenditures? 
Was it the lack of major customer announcements for its third-party foundry business? 
Was it simply profit-taking after a huge run in the stock this year? 
As it turned out, the fall in Intel was more likely tied to forced selling from a highly levered, AI-focused hedge fund that took on too much risk and was forced to unwind its popular AI trades when the group sold off in July. 
The combination of the end of forced sellers with strong capex commentary from the hyperscalers this earnings season as reignited the AI theme, and we think Intel is deserving of trading at least back to that post-earnings $113 level. 
(Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long INTC. 
See here for a full list of the stocks.) 
As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. 
Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. 
If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. 
THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . 
NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. 
NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.2%Jeff Marks: 5.1%CNBC: 3.6%Confirmation Bias17.2%This article: 17.6%Jeff Marks: 4.6%CNBC: 1.9%Anchoring Bias17.6%This article: 2.8%Jeff Marks: 0.8%CNBC: 2.5%Availability Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.2%CNBC: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.5%Jeff Marks: 5.4%CNBC: 0.5%Hindsight Bias9.5%This article: 12.7%Jeff Marks: 1.8%CNBC: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias12.7%This article: 3.2%Jeff Marks: 2.8%CNBC: 4.7%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 18.1%Jeff Marks: 4.2%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion18.1%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.4%CNBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 2.8%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.0%Jeff Marks: 6.7%CNBC: 6.4%Optimism Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 2.0%CNBC: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 9.5%CNBC: 4.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 3.4%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Jeff Marks: 2.0%CNBC: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error9.5%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.7%CNBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Jeff Marks: 1.5%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 2.8%Jeff Marks: 0.2%CNBC: 0.2%Primacy Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 9.7%Jeff Marks: 1.7%CNBC: 0.8%False Dilemma9.7%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.2%CNBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 1.7%CNBC: 3.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 1.3%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 2.5%CNBC: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.4%Jeff Marks: 0.8%CNBC: 0.5%Begging the Question8.4%This article: 23.4%Jeff Marks: 4.6%CNBC: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.4%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.7%CNBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.3%CNBC: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.1%Jeff Marks: 0.3%CNBC: 1.9%Unattributed Quote4.1%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 20.4%Jeff Marks: 9.1%CNBC: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice20.4%This article: 9.7%Jeff Marks: 0.7%CNBC: 0.8%Indoctrination9.7%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Marks: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Jeff Marks: 2.3%CNBC: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.0%

465 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers19%attributed speech376writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words25% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +96.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.3 ptsWriter: 25.3%CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer: 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.