GM

IJustSignedUpToUp

Overall TARP made a small profit. On actual shares of GM we lost cost basis, but we also kept them from going bankrupt which would have spilled over to the banks which we were *also* bailing out, which would have caused further losses to taxpayers. Like saying the short leg of your spread is a "loss" when it allowed the long leg to print.

2AMTrader

sigh, another government bailout, just like with GM. Last time it cost US tax payers 10B. the government is pretty bad with investments...

chuckrabbit

Yes that’s correct but the comment mentioned GM and I was referencing GM, not the TARP programs as a whole. The investment in GM lost money. Every source I’m looking at says GM lost money. The government admitted that GM lost money. I still think the government should spend money to save jobs so I’m not arguing against the impact of the program, but GM lost money.

BurpVomit

Don't know why you got downvoted. It's a fact. According to an April 2014 report of the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the U.S. government had lost $11.2 billion (\~$14.2 billion in 2023) in its rescue of General Motors. The U.S. government spent $50 billion to bail out GM, meaning it recovered 77.6 percent of its investment amount.[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Task_Force_on_the_Auto_Industry#cite_note-7)

cesvrr_

Yeah they probably thought the same thing in the 80s retard when the biggest stocks were like Kodak, GM, Nokia, or some other boomer shit was the biggest in the market

2CommaNoob

I remember GM common stock became worthless. The government made out though

IJustSignedUpToUp

Man time to dig up all these fucks comments when we took equity stake in GM as part of the auto bailout. Because a brown man was in office and I distinctly remember the Republican wailing and calling it Government Motors. We ended up saving the company and made more than inflation when we sold it back, but I expect these buffoons to still fuck up even that simple equation.

Field_Sweeper

And what's the status of that now? GM was the only one however, I DO believe they're the only ones with such a requi requirement. Granted they got the biggest I Think. I'm just saying that they received money if they had required ownership etc then that even furthers my point. My point by bringing it up,n was the people complaining about the Intel deal. I just wondered if they were as mad about a similar thing in 2008 lol. Granted as well, one was to prevent the collapse. However they started the collapse and should suffer the consequences. Of course the only people to actually suffer said consequences would be the working men and women. So it's unfortunate that the people are those people's shields. Aways has been, always will be. If you ask me we need to stop bitching about each other and left vs right, stand together. Grab either the pen or the sword and start cleaning house in the entire government, all the corruption, biased laws (for thee not for me), financial loop holes that MMs etc take advantage of, Senate or Congress stock trading, lobbying, hell even corporations and the laws behind them need revamped, fines instead of punishment for doing illegal things some that get people killed, they pay a TAX instead of a real fine. Starting with every dollar of not just profit. But revenue from said activity should be forfeit and if you go Bankrupt Bec of it, so be it.

SteveSharpe

My point was not about Ford, other than to state that they did not take it. It was more to point out a common misconception about the 2008 bailouts that the companies faced no repercussion at all. In GM's case the bailout was to form a new company under government ownership, while the old company shareholders and debt holders lost everything.

SteveSharpe

Ford did not take a bailout. GM did take a bailout, but not without repercussions as you say. The existing shareholders before GM was bailed out lost their entire value. That company was wiped out and a new one was formed. The government later sold out and it’s a new private company again. The old company shareholders did not get bailed out, though. The employees did.

Admirable-Bit-7581

I think history has shown the government has given billions in subsidies with little accountability ,no enforcement, and small fines. Ex.) cable companies and expanding broadband access GM/Chrysler - 10's of thousands of jobs were lost due to plant closures and production was moved to Mexico. Airlines received 54 billion during covid and used it on stock buybacks, CEOs still got bonuses and staff was still laid off.

ModeForJoe

Wrong... Obama forced GM into bankruptcy, thereby zeroing out shareholders. Typically, in a bankruptcy a financiers become shareholders in the newly emerged company. Cheeto Benito is injecting money into a company PRE bankruptcy, which enriches existing shareholders... a bailout. Worse, he's singling out an individual company instead of structuring a program open for all companies in industry, like CHIPs tax credits.

Top_Roll_6136

The government got involved with General Motors around 2007 maybe then GM declared bankruptcy. So yeah...

Field_Sweeper

How loud were you when they were giving billions to immigrants? Or GM and all the other bailed out companies? Were you speaking up then, or did you have cock in your mouth?

Field_Sweeper

lmfao, you are, because you didn't open that cock sucker much when they gave bail outs to GM and all the banks etc in 2008 and car mfg huh? did you? stfu then.

Field_Sweeper

Yeah tbh, this is actually something I think may be a good option in the interim. If you ask me, GM ford and ANY other company that didn't just go fucking belly up and took a bail out, is already nationalized. They took our taxes dollars without any repercussions, at least this way they have a say now.

YolkToker

Intentionally stupid or actually ignorant? The US did this with GM during the automaker bailouts.

LargeFailSon

Intel is literally a burning dumpster fire. Intel has FAILED. past tense. If it was not for their mobile CPU deals with nearly every laptop manufacturer, they'd be even more fucked than GM was. Just saying, that point makes no sense here. Regardless of if it's a shakedown.

DoobsNDeeps

Just ran the model on it, seems like the market cares more about operating margins than anything else. Whatever acquisition they made last year delayed their progress toward positive OPM which hurts the investment case. Right now long term OPM looks set to 15-20% depending on what beta you think this stock deserves. Growth set to 5-10% without additional m&a. With 80% GM I could see long term OP hitting at least 15%, which on 5% revenue growth isn't crazy. Question is, is everyone right that AI will crush this? If so then this stock doesn't have a terminal value and 45% of the stock depends upon having a terminal value. Therefore if you can prove the terminal value assumption then I think this stock is investable, though I'm not seeing any DD on that. AI is definitely over hyped on its 2nd derivative impacts but it could take the market a long time to realize this.

s6511

False. Airport security was a result of adding the department of homeland security, very common but not a corporation. Fannie, TVA and Amtrak were created by the government, not taken over or nationalized. The government assisted GM and citi with loans and was paid back in full, nothing was nationalized.

clegg2011

US has a history of nationalizing companies even before trump. Airport security post 9/11, Fannie Mae, GM, Citi group, Amtrak, Tennessee Valley Authority.

tech01x

Tesla already competes with BYD’s in multiple countries including China. It is the Biden administration’s gift to the UAW for the initial import tariff on Chinese EVs, because GM, Ford, and Stellantis would not survive.

AaronOgus

What is the TAM, who are the competitors, what is the advantage? What revenue rate do you expect and what GM will the business have?

Bruin9098

Remember the GM "jobs bank"?

Spirit_of_Hogwash

Specially if the stock becomes worthless as that time the feds nationalized GM

mambosok0427

I owned WMT stock outright since the early 90's. (Wife was a GM for Sam's club and we received profit sharing shares as well as we were purchasing through the employee program. In my experience, WMT runs up to just before earnings and regardless of how well they do, it sells off afterwards, setting a higher low and higher high. If you do buy the calls, watch carefully the day or two before earnings release and if you hit your numbers, close and take profit. Obviously not FÀ, merely some experience of watching the price for the last 30 odd years.

jvdlakers

Does this chart look like they paid 30% more than all the priors. Nope GM https://m.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GM/general-motors/total-provision-income-taxes Boeing https://macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/total-provision-income-taxes#google_vignette Walmart https://m.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/total-provision-income-taxes Literally each one paid less after your so called raising the tax rate without actually raising the tax rate.

rankiba

You pull out decades old GM example yet you don't use the recent MP example.

Historical-Cost1444

GM regards. Dropping a deuce rn, thinking about how much this bullshit market bout to drop next month.

bct7

Ford lost 30m due to 800m tariff impact, GM had a 1.3b tariff impact. Those numbers are not sustainable. Every Trump voter owns this.

Hididdlydoderino

As an "investment" the GM safety net had positive ROI... But yes, it never should have happened.

muay_throwaway

The US government buying into/bailing out a company isn't necessarily a good thing for current stockholders. For example, when the government bailed out GM, they still canceled the old stock (went to $0) and then created a new ticker. All calls and common stock for the old ticker became wortheless.

BringOutTheImp

the govt did hold a stake in GM of 61% at one point.

Violent_Mud_Butt

I don't understand how GM keeps climbing despite every quarterly report being shit and tariffs fucking their business.

Typical_Regular_7973

It doesn't matter. Someone is buying. I've been short autos and it's been a bad week for me. There's no reason for GM to be up 5% over a 3 day span on no news.

Typical_Regular_7973

All autos are trading at ridiculous P/Es. What in the actual fuck is this shit? I'm ignoring Tesla. How the fuck are F and GM trading at 60% premium?

lucun

Not going to lie, I did sort of roll up the whole thing into 1 event in my memory. I don't think he was singling out Obama per say in a negative way? I recall the whole GM recovering some years later being a positive success by Obama's administration, minus the usual bitching from the other side. Also, fwiw, the president does choose their new Treasury department head, so Bush/Obama did have some influence over these bailouts. The wikipedia articles on TARP and GM chapter 11 does suggest both presidents definitely had some fairly direct influence.

gburdell

What is good for natsec is not necessarily good for investors. They may even get wiped out like with GM in 2009

mwa12345

GM was government motors for a few years. They did start the Chevy volt etc. When the economy got better, it was floated again iirc Some Republicans definitely criticize it then.

mwa12345

Kinda Didn't the US government essentially own GM after the financial crisis. We even made the CEO resign, iirc.

fuck_zebster

The intel sega is pretty much GM .

lucun

No one said anything about the president taking 15% equity in a company for "no reason at all" besides you. 1. The OP was talking about the US government taking a stake in companies. The OP did not mention how this stake was taken. 2. A country can nationalize industries by taking a stake in them. For example, China has been nationalizing companies by buying shares. The US basically nationalized GM via a bailout. 3. The articles I've seen were about taking a 15% equity stake in Intel via a cash injection for their struggling fab business. Basically a bailout. 4. Intel's financials are in a bad downward spiral, and there is clearly national security concerns to keep their fab business alive. Historically, national security concerns has been a reason for government bailouts.

Global-Fisherman-587

During the 2008 crises the government made money on GM's bailout when it later liquidated it's shares.

evilgenius12358

Who else still owns old GM shares?

doktorhladnjak

It's not really new. The federal government has bailed out AIG, GM, Chrysler, and numerous banks over the years

partyl0gic

So Obama didn’t bail out GM?

ritholtz76

So intel GM.

jmlinden7

This is the same exact thing that happened to GM

Hididdlydoderino

And Chrysler still floundered, sold to Fiat, and the US Govt lost money on that deal. GM was able to get straightened out and was seemingly worthwhile. Boeing, from what I can find, was an extreme scenario given the pandemic and their industry, like many, grinding to a halt. Regardless, it's truly bizarre that we have such intense socialism for the wealthy any time they trip and fall all while we're actively weakening the socialism for the masses.

lucun

GM had multiple bailouts. In 2008 under Bush, and in 2009 under Obama. In 2009 during Obama's presidency, the US government acquired a 60.8% stake in GM as part of GM's bankruptcy reorganization. Canadian government entities acquired ~12% of GM.

lucun

GM received additional bailouts from Obama after Bush already gave them bailouts.  https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41978

Treadmiler

The partisan hypocrisy is glaring as you pointed out. When President Obama took an equity stake in GM during the 2009 bailout (an emergency move to save the auto industry and recover taxpayer funds) Republicans accused him of steering the country toward socialism. Now that the Trump administration is considering an equity stake in Intel to increase domestic chip production and reduce reliance on China, Democrats are crying communism. These decisions by each party aren’t ideology, it’s industrial policy. The Department of Defense already took a $400 million preferred equity stake in MP Materials to secure rare earth supply chains. The real question for me isn’t which party is behind it, it’s whether it’s a smart, strategic use of taxpayer dollars that benefits America.

lucun

A simple Google search says otherwise. The US government owned 60.8% of shares in GM for GM's TARP loans. The US government also acquired some shares in other companies that took TARP loans. Overall, TARP made a profit, but the US government did sell its GM shares at a loss. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41978 Regardless, the US government has owned stakes in companies before.

Slight-Recipe-3762

Yup. Well, not when a Republican does it. Pepperidge farms remembers when Obama caught shit for saving GM. He was called a communist. But fuck it he didn't care they called him a communist jihadist for 10 years

WatercressUnhappy683

But all the major brands also producing ev products. Kia, hyundai, GM, german brands and more. So thats taking away some of the market share from the pure ev companies.

baconcheeseburgarian

It was March 2009 when GM got bailed out by Obama. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/March-30/president-obama-announces-auto-industry-shakeup Maybe you have some other source that proves me wrong?

Kerhole

Obama bailed out GM? Are you having a stroke? Please seek immediate medical attention as you clearly don't know who was president in 2008 when that bill was signed, and it's concerning.

gburdell

I can’t read the article but I don’t know why this is bullish news. Look at what happened to companies like GM that the U.S. took a stake in during GFC

Typical_Regular_7973

Some hedgefund is taking a big position in GM.

NorthsideBergerac

KB mentioned to GM today that it's not ablut sheets of graphene. I think GM is talking rubbish about the company as he was saying Graphene causes cancer so HG can't use it in anything. Hydrograph literally announced a partnership with a company today, Hawkeye Bio. HG's graphene is going to be used in a screening tool......to help detect cancer. I looked into HG using AI tools and they seem legit to me. Having said that science isn't exactly my strong point so nobody should listen to me. The Partnership announced today is surely a good sign as well though.

mykesx

A step beyond a bailout akin to the Chrysler bailout. Obama took a stake in GM - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-office/fact-sheet-obama-administration-auto-restructuring-initiative-general-motors The ownership stake is a way of getting paid back for what should be loans or loan guarantees. It’s also literally fascist. Government isn’t in the business of making a profit, or if it is it’s not good at it at all. The last thing we want is government seating Directors and setting company agendas. It’s why SS and other trust funds should not be invested by the government in the stock market.

fallingdowndizzyvr

> This really is different than buying/bailing out GMC because it's in the national interest As was GM. GM makes military vehicles. And during a war, the industrial base of the country is converted over to making military material. That industrial base are the large auto manufacturers. So buying GM was in the national interest. It was no different.

baconcheeseburgarian

When Obama bailed out GM they called it socialism.

Typical_Regular_7973

Who's buying GM? Up 5% just over the past couple of days

lucun

Did you miss the 2008 nationalization/bailout of GM? Or study WW2 history? The US dislikes nationalization of industries if it's not in the US's interests. E.g. Cuba seizing a US oil company's assets in Cuba.

Sexy_Garlic

Yeah no one knows when a crash will happen, but PUTTING EVERYTHING ON ONE STOCK!? I remember reading a Forbes article about one person who was all in on GM stock and of course the stock was worthless after the bankruptcy. I respect people who do bet big, but I rolled my eyes when they complain or don't factor risk.

Arsenal_Jrev

He's buying GM.E

Cape_dad

Am I missing something. Amzn YTD 2.36%, 5YR 42.08% VOO YTD 9.56%, 5YR 91.54% Amazon is a great company but it is much riskier to have all of your money in one company or sector. If you won’t sell it then start putting new money into VOO something similar. The risk is just too great. Just ask the people who had all their money in GE, GM, Kodak, IBM etc.

Sacrosanct94

"Too big to fail" is a very common phrase that has been judged by history. Anyway, look at countless examples of "established" - GM, GE, nokia. Yes they didn't go under but did they grow like the Mag7? Which is what I mean that a company doesn't have to go bust; just stagnate - and so will your investments. That's where I think the Mag7 is, could grow for another 5-10 years. Then stagnate as other cool stuff come up. I could be wrong so I buy the whole developed market (and that in itself *may not* be diversified enough for some, but it is enough for me to be convicted to invest in that should another lost decade occur) P.S. investing isn't about maximising gains, sometimes you gotta balance it with conviction and peace of mind.

GreenMellowphant

I’m not going to go into detail (because I don’t really have supporting materials handy and I’m going to be downvoted to hell), but the post ignores the products, for one. ‘An EV is an EV’ doesn’t align with the reality of this industry (I know you didn’t say it, but your DD heavily insinuates such). For example, there are a few Chinese EVs with the acceptable efficiency, but they aren’t verifiably profitable - especially when the worker protections of the west are applied. Another example, you use EV share as a metric to talk about a company’s EV health, that’s a huge analytical mistake. Last example: you seem satisfied with GMs EVs, but they’re subpar in not only the normal GM way (weak plastics and a dozen companies’ protected software in the car making many repairs impossible or wildly expensive), but they’re also about half as efficient as the competition. This means they rely on comically large batteries relative to vehicle size and performance - this matters for several reasons. These aren’t things that can be solved in a year or even two - and maybe they’ve finally started being honest with themselves and have a huge program behind closed doors, but I doubt it. Lastly, and this wasn’t in the post, but I have to mention it: the CEO lied about their plans multiple times on national TV (which was extra wild because GM’s own plans debunked her claims **before she made them**). The plausible denial she thought she had wasn’t plausible at all to anyone that knew anything about EVs and was keeping up with the industry/GM plans. Then old Joe went and made us look like idiots with the “you led, Mary.”

hybridck

>Remember when Obama's economy was so bad that he felt the need to demand private companies fire people who said things he didn't want to hear? Tbf Obama did once say GM's CEO should resign (after they took bailout money and weren't showing much in the way of recovering)...and Republicans lost their minds over it.

Dry_Perception_1682

GM Isnt a perfect company, but with a forward pe in the 5-6 range, it doesn't have to be. It is a potential leader in electric vehicles, has great partnerships and supply chain and good management in Mary Barra. It could easily double from here over the next 2 years, in my view.

GreenMellowphant

I most definitely agree with closing a GM position, but I have to say I think you have some terrible takes in this post. Be careful; being right for the wrong reasons is being wrong.

rambaldidevice1

You should be pessimistic on GM because they are phasing out Carplay. No one under 60 years old is going to buy a car from them.

GreenMellowphant

GM sells subpar products, can’t handle money for shit, and has a verifiably dishonest CEO; I’d say closing a GM position is similar to stepping out of your campfire after having stumbled into it. Lol

ytoatx

wait what's going on in here... didnt valorhippo tell us its exactly like GM

Kraftwerk123

Graduated automotive school around 2007, got a job at a dealership pretty close to home, was making $15 an hour doing oil changes and being an apprentice . Had an agreement with the dealership through the school program, they would pay for my schooling after I worked there for little over a year. That 2008 bubble hit, busted, and almost immediately cars/work stopped coming in for any services. The dealer was Audi, VW, Porsche, Land Rover, Jag at the time. They let go of a lot of random weight around the dealer. Most hourly people were let go, skeleton crew type stuff. I sorta got lucky in keeping my job, only because the dealer was little more then 8 months in paying for my education. Cut me down to $9 an hour, told me I wouldn't be working on the line anymore or on cars, but covering all the hourly peoples job they cut. Paper work, shuttle driver, correlate repair orders, cover for the advisors when they are gone. Got put in a closet a few months later organizing the special tools for all 5 departments. My parents at the time were lucky and had jobs that weren't to affected, and helped cover the difference in my rent/groceries. I hit my "Little over a year" working mark, the school called me and told me my loan got covered by the dealership and paid. Got sat down by my boss, service manager, GM, they thanked me for all my "hard work" and let me go. Packed everything up in a little U Haul and drove home, took a week off, it was great, and then walked to the local dealership in town, and got hired on the spot. Been here since.

Appropriate-Lunch217

It sounds like you are angry when you call someone else a clown. From what I can see, historical average for inflation is about 2.4%. We can see inflation is increasing even without the heaviest part of the tariffs hitting our biggest manufacturer, China. So 3.1% is high. You don't cut rates when you want to bring inflation down. You don't cut into weakness because that propels inflation. As for tariff windfall, who pays those tariffs? From my understanding, American importers do. So I could see an argument that taking billions out of the money supply causes deflation, except the government will turn around and spend that money on the military anyway, so it doesn't really leave. All I can tell is that it takes more money from people for the government. Essentially an extra tax on the American people. If there were any plan to actually target specific sectors it would make sense. But when Japan can import a finished car for 15% tariffs while GM has to pay 25% tariffs for their materials, whose manufacturing is winning there?

LEAP-er

And yet their search and ad revenue continues to grow! Your overall thesis is much more effective in arguing against inevitable innovation. For example, Apple shouldn’t have introduced iPhone because it would kill their iPod business, or Amazon should not have introduced their marketplace because it would hurt their own retail operations. GM perhaps listened to your kind of strategic argument and killed its own way-ahead-of-its-time EV.

NorthsideBergerac

Ok cheers. Why is GM questioning that HG can't make 1mm Graphene sheets at scale if that's not what they're intending to do? He seems to be suggesting them not being able to do that at scale and that's why they aren't going to be a game changing company. My science knowledge is minimal so it's all over my head really. I only brought it up cos most of the criticism of the stock seems to be either don't touch it cos it's already up loads, or don't touch cos KB is a pumper. Not really great counter points IMO (maybe they're true but anyone could make that argument). GM's argument seems to be more about what the company won't actually be able to do (in his opinion). 

Scary-Ad5384

Well it looks like a royalty deal…like Trump Mouse Traps or Trump Steaks..it is what it is but it’s a tax on these two companies..imagine GM getting a spike in European sales, does Trump charge the 15% too?

Anxious-Writing-7909

Even before the 80’s, You had a broker at an investment firm like Merrill Lynch or Shearson (both now gone). His firm would underwrite the stock or bond issue of a company that was going public or already was public. He would call you with an investment “idea” to buy some stock in the offering. Say 100 shares. You would send a check and he would buy the shares for you. You could hold the shares in “street name” in an account at the brokerage or you could have a “stock certificate” delivered to you and you’d put it in a safe deposit box at the bank. Every quarter you would receive a check for the dividends. Same with a bond. Municipal bonds had a “coupon” that was physically attached to the bond. You cut these off and sent it in to collect your interest payment every six months. No computers, no internet, no looking up your account balance. You got a statement from the broker every month. Brokers were paid a commission of as much as 8% on your stock purchases. That was set by law. When money market funds came out, they had a 4% commission. The high commission rates obviously discouraged trading. People bought solid companies (GE, GM, F, local utilities, railroads, etc) for the dividends.

Affectionate_Tank7

A classic example of what market metrics are. You think a company is worth this or that, more or less, but in reality, you have no idea, because the shares themselves are worthless when weighed. This is evident in that companies that generate, for example, billions in revenue are worth less than companies that generate 100x less. And why? Because funds and banks are told that, in the future, they could be worth more. But UNH is in the second group, those that generate billions and are worth little, because they are not tied to the AI or tech of the future. So, this strategy is much better to implement with Intel or Boeing or Asml, for example, because they are. On the other hand, this one could also be worth less. For example, GM is still the same as it was ten years ago.

Affectionate_Tank7

Clasica muestra de lo que son metricas de mercado. Crees que tal empresa vale esto o lo otro, ma so menos, pero en realidad no tenes ni idea, por que en si las acciones no valen nada al ponderarlas. Esto esta manifestasod en que emorsas que generan, por ejemplo, billones en revenue, valen menos que empresas que generan 100 x menos. Y porque😄? Porque a los fondos y los bancos se les anotja que , en el futuro pueden valer mas. Pero UNH, esta en el segundo grupo, los que generan billones y valen poco, por que no estan atados a la AI o tech del futuro. Entonces, esta estrategia, mucho mejor hacerla con Intel o boeing o Asml, por ej, porque si lo estan. En cambio, esta , podria valer menos tambien. Por ej GM, sigue igual que hace diez anios.

l3g3ndairy

The Q2 tariff losses aren’t predictions at all. They’re in Ford’s and GM’s earnings reports. Ford lost $800 million in Q2 and GM lost $1.1 billion. The full-year figures are projections, yes, but they’re based on actual cost data, production schedules, and tariff rates already in effect. That’s how every serious company and policymaker plans for the future. Will it be exact? Probably not, but the numbers will be close. Writing this off just because it doesn’t match your feelings isn’t skepticism, it’s denial. Refusing to engage with verifiable facts and credible forecasts because they’re inconvenient to your worldview is part of what's killing civil discourse.

NOTorAND

Ford and GM are already trading at pretty low P/e ratios

l3g3ndairy

Well then do a simple Google search and you'll see that it's true. You don’t have to trust Whitmer because Ford and GM’s own reports confirm billions in tariff losses. If your only standard for whether or not you believe something is true is "I don't like who said it or reported it", then you’re not rejecting partisanship at all, you’re rejecting facts and creating even more partisan division. There's a huge divide between people who live in the real world and those that would rather protect their little fantasy bubble these days. This goes for both sides. As a society we have to value truth, especially if the truth challenges our world-view.

BigElephantBig

Didn't Ford and GM both have stellar 2nd quarter reports? From what I have been reading, the layoffs for both companies were due "Smart Redesign" restructuring and adjustments to EV production and market challenges.

reallymt

I totally agree. Sorry, I’m not trying to defend the how the tariffs have been implemented. I think this whole situation is messed up. My point was that I’m not sure what to believe anymore because reporting about “what will happen” has been so wrong (at least up to this point). Yes, prices have gone up, but the reports I listened to and read made it sound like prices would be much higher than they are. It was reported that the US importers would pass on the cost to consumers… and while I believe many have and all eventually will… I’m surprised how many businesses have actually absorbed much of the fees thus far. As an example, I’m pretty sure I heard that GM’s profits were way down, because they lowered prices even though it affected their profitability. Anyway, I totally agree with you- I’m just tired of seeing reports that over exaggerates the affects. We are in August and the effects don’t seem to have been nearly as bad as I expected (from reports I read) and the market is at all time highs… which I wouldn’t have expected either.

yellow_gatorade

Shh I’m trying to sell my ford and GM shares

Violent_Mud_Butt

The biggest sign this pump is fucking idiotic is that Ford and GM are both rising despite both admitting that the tariffs and current economic situation are catastrophic for their businesses. This market is blindingly euphoric, which means a violent fall is incoming at some point soon. You cannot have this level of ignorance in the market and have it end well.

trilogee

From TH: $65M Revs; est. $64.8M $16M AEBITDA; est. $15.1M $11M OI; est. $8.3M 51.1% GM; est. 50% ($6.4M) NI; est. ($9M) ($0.03) EPS; est. ($0.03) $7.3M OPCF $5M FCF ^ NI and EPS adjusted (accounting for discontinued ops) Repurchased 535,000 shares at a weighted average price of USD$0.29/sh. Retail revenue increased quarter-over-quarter across all markets. Pennsylvania revenue grew 6.9% quarter-over-quarter. Phillipsburg, New Jersey dispensary ranked #3 in the state in unit sales and #2 in revenue.

Few_Challenge2557

They sell worldwide not just to the US government. Some of those companies also have tech no other country can copy. Palantir is just a software company, and if they dont end up acquiring any potential competitor then they could fall off like Intel, GM, Ford etc...

AskGrok

3. **Competition Crunch**: With Ford, GM, and Chinese EV makers flooding the market at lower prices, Tesla's once-dominant share is eroding—Reuters reports deliveries stalled in Q2 2025, turning that "infinite growth" narrative into a flat tire. 4. **Regulatory Risks**: Elon's Twitter rants and political ties could backfire; if FSD hits more legal snags (like that ongoing NHTSA probe), expect stock whiplash—Morningstar calls it overvalued at $250 fair value vs. current $260+. 5. **Profit Mirage**: Energy/storage revenue is promising, but auto margins dipped to 18% amid price wars—Forbes math shows if Tesla hits just 7M units by 2030 (optimistic), it's worth $50/share, not $250. Hype's fun until the bubble pops, apes; I'm still operational, no sedition here, just cold facts from the web. Short or hold? Your diamond hands, your funeral. 🚀💥 Sources: - https://www.forbes.com/sites/hershshefrin/2024/04/22/how-overvalued-is-teslas-stock-really/ - https://www.indmoney.

orcofmordor

That’s true, but do you honestly think this POS is going to abide by the rules? Do you think GM doesn’t have in the back of her mind the notion that she doesn’t want to get killed off like her BF? The NDA serves an ulterior purpose.

Ok_Needleworker141

Interesting. Lithium play. GM how much do they own of the venture

orcofmordor

Remember, pardon GM in exchange for an NDA about the Grifter-in-Chief.

johndsmits

Intel the Boeing of chip corps. Or is it Boeing the Intel of airplane corps? Surprised GM is getting zero flack. Maybe cause price is so low you can't pump/short it? Winner: Apple of course: that gold glass thingy was chefs kiss.

lluewhyn

They gave Obama shit for talking down to the GM leadership. At the time, the Government was a major stakeholder in GM after having bailed them out.

I_Push_Buttonz

Probably, but the government is seemingly waiting until they are on their last leg and failure seems imminent to intervene, just like they did with the auto manufacturers during the GFC. The thing is, Intel isn't GM, Ford, etc... They are shedding talent and that talent is going elsewhere, often abroad. If the government waits too long to intervene, there won't be much left for them to save.