GM

RepresentativeBand19

Ford and GM

C130J_Darkstar

Something tells me that RK will come out the woods again on this next GM3 bull run

sniffstink1

Why is the USA pissing around like this? Just expel all the foreign auto makers, nationalize GM, Ford & Chevrolet, then block all travel in and out of the USA. Make it so that if you are a GOP party official (high ranking) you're permitted to travel abroad, but if you're low ranking then your family stays behind and is watched by ICE (someone needs to play the KGB role. Government can solve the housing crisis and nationalize all privately owned homes, and assign people dwellings based on marital status, family, chosen career, or party status. Build more Alligator Alcatrazes, and also make sure that ICE escorts any foreign visitor who enters the country. Anyway, laugh all you want but you know that this is where it's slowly headed.

Ok_Ambassador_4311

The choice is either SPY 9/19 Fri or 9/22 Mon which one? And GM to all

Bagholder147

GM

Far_Addition1210

At the current Tesla Market Cap you could buy GM 23 times, GM had revenue of $147bn, twice Teslas turnover, and a profit of $6bn.

Far_Addition1210

At the current Tesla Market Cap you could buy GM 23 times, GM had revenue of $147bn, twice Teslas turnover, and a profit of $6bn.

BitterEstimate

Wait GM has more quarterly profits than Tesla lmaoo

AnonThrowaway1A

Carbon credits are going away so other automakers (GM/Ford/Stellantis) don't need to give free billions and billions to Tesla for free.

TheDiligentDog

Cowboys winning best GM of the year for sure..

EvilPencil

Yep. “It will recover eventually” possibly, or it just goes bankrupt like GM did in 2008. The company still exists, but most investors were wiped out entirely.

Objective-Pizza1391

Ford sucks. GM sucks. Stellantis sucks. Toyota sucks. Short em all to $0.

KittyInspector3217

Aka a memestock. Everyone calling it a tech company or saying it got hammered is in the cult. They *make cars*. The accepted, rationalized reason tech has high P/Es and growth is because *software is incredibly cheap to produce as a product*. Theres no crazy supply chain, no warehousing, no unobtainium. Its text files. Lots and lots of text files, so the margins are insane and you can just keep pumping out new versions. The perfect product. Tesla’s market cap is about $1.3T. *That’s higher than every other auto manufacturer combined*. Meanwhile they delivered about 1.5M vehicles. Toyota did 13M. Ford doubled them, GM too. Honda USA beat them. Nissan, Audi, Mercedes, BMW. Hell Porsche sold about 60%. Toyota is the global leader in sales and has a MC of $250B. Tesla is a fucking cult. They can barely make cars that dont catch on fire and fall apart and everyone thinks theyre going to make the autonomous, AI driving future and saying so *forever*. It is pure speculation, completely detached from reality. But it seems like the whole market is these days.

iphonehome9

It just doesn't make sense. Up another 7%. TSLA Market Cap 1.24T - EBITDA 2.36B GM Market Cap 55.70B - EBITDA 4.00B So GM is twice as profitable but TSLA is 22x more valuable

Zalanox

There is no AI bubble! AI is replacing workers as fast as CEO’s and GM’s can understand it!

Cinderpath

I’ve been following Tesla stock now for over 10 years. It’s always been a financial house of cards, completely defied finance, accounting, and investing rules and logic! (Taking losses on crypto-holdings? WTF??, imagine if GM did this?) In short: it’s a cult of personality stock, like Trump. I firmly believe it will crash at some point, and when it does the effects to the broader market will be really bad! But because of it being a cult stock, I’ll never short it, at least with real money!

Not_FinancialAdvice

> Mostly Ally Financial Sounds like we're going to be bailing out GM again.... (Ally was GMAC, GM's financial arm)

Medical-Chapter-1410

go to Ford and ask for a suv wtih Quattro or Xdrive,if they refused then just walk out and go ask GM.

jjesusmartinezjesus

AHAHAH I was going the opposite way with TSLA and still lost. All the political news with the company made me lose a nice chunk. I am surprised the shorting didnt work with you. Thankfully that is not my whole portfolio. I am still a bull on it though. Why? Yeah, TSLA looks overvalued if you compare it to Ford or GM, but that’s the wrong playbook. Tesla isn’t just cars — it’s EVs, energy storage, solar, autonomy, and even robotics. **Bears say:** * “Competition will kill them” → Legacy automakers still lose money on EVs. * “FSD will never happen” → Tesla has the biggest real-world dataset by miles. * “Valuation is insane” → It always has been, and yet Tesla keeps growing into it. I’m bullish because even if ONE of those moonshots (autonomy, energy, robotics) hits, today’s price looks cheap in hindsight.

VENhodl

Nike has been shitting the bed for years now tbh, not really a good example. Auto companies are still doing decent, GM is beating earnings and is up YTD. Not sure if you can even solely blame tariffs on companies like LULU that aren't doing as well. You can cherry pick but ultimately as a whole the tariffs were a big nothing burger in terms of impact.

I-DontCareAnymore22

Here is a recent email sent out by a WMT maintenance employee in relation to automation (symbotic). this email was scrubbed from wmt servers. DC 6025: A Toxic Culture, a Broken Chain of Command, and My Final Message To Whom It May Concern, This letter serves as my formal resignation from my position at Walmart DC 6025, effective August 31, 2025. Let me be clear: this is not about a better offer, a bad day, or a personal issue. It’s about walking away from a system that has become actively harmful — one defined by dysfunction, hypocrisy, and a complete absence of accountability. My departure is not a career move; it’s a final act of honesty in a place that punishes truth and rewards mediocrity. Since I am not given the opportunity for an exit interview, let this letter serve as my final attempt to spark the change this building desperately needs. The Culture Is Toxic — and It Starts at the Top This building is no longer a professional workplace. It is a machine that rewards favoritism, covers up incompetence, and systematically undermines the very people who keep it running. I’ve watched underqualified and untrained individuals walk into skilled roles based on who they know — not what they know. One MST didn’t even know how to use a multimeter and has since caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage. Still employed. Still protected. I’ve watched employees lie about doing PMs, get caught on camera, and face no consequences. No write-ups. No retraining. Just silence. I watched another associate nearly blow himself up due to gross negligence — and somehow, he still works here. Certain associates continue to be shielded despite repeated incompetence. Jason Miller, my Operations Manager, exemplifies everything wrong with leadership here. He has: Appeared intoxicated on multiple Teams meetings, slurring his words, harassing Symbotic engineers, and threatening contractors — in front of witnesses. Blatantly played favorites, treating certain subordinates with care and shielding them from any criticism or accountability, while throwing others under the bus at the first opportunity. Admitted to not reading emails sent to him — and frequently responds with AI-generated replies that he doesn’t even bother to proofread. Cherry-picked candidates for roles and interviews, overlooking qualified, experienced individuals while giving opportunities to people clearly unfit for the job — often out of spite, seemingly to punish those he personally dislikes. Created division on the floor by making it clear that politics, not performance, determine advancement. He is not just disengaged — he is actively damaging morale, sabotaging professional development, and reinforcing a culture of mistrust and dysfunction. And despite all this, he continues in his role unchallenged. These are not rumors. These are facts. Documented, repeated incidents that management has chosen to ignore. And all the while, those of us who show up, care, and carry the weight are expected to keep doing so without recognition, without support, and often while training people who earn more than we do. We’re overworked and under-resourced — while management claps at meetings about 50-cent raises that don’t even keep up with inflation. Leadership by Appearance, Not Action Upper management has become so disconnected from reality that they can’t even show up for general meetings. When we gathered to hear about our “raise,” the GM was in the building but couldn’t be bothered to stay an extra 30 minutes to speak in person. Instead, we got applause from leadership and silence from the floor. That silence wasn’t accidental — it was earned. Meanwhile, money is spent on floor polish that lasted less than a month and made equipment unsafe, windows that increased internal building temperatures, and a back-dock “general meeting area” that was never used — all to put on a show for corporate visits. But when it comes to investing in associates? We’re told to ration electrolyte packets. We’re continuously short on parts to keep the place running. We’re told to make do. Contrary to what our GM likes to say, we’re not running a farm. We’re running a multi-million-dollar facility. And the people keeping it afloat are being lied to, dismissed, and slowly ground down. Even outside this facility, the dishonesty continues. At a college career fair, our company reps handed out flyers claiming that Walmart pays for schooling — conveniently omitting that it doesn’t apply to the school hosting the event. When I confronted them, their tone changed. Because the truth didn’t support the narrative. That same person, who was lying to prospective employees, just got promoted to an AGM position. That only furthers my point: there is something deeply wrong here. Grassroots in Name Only The so-called “grassroots” meetings — meant to hear associate feedback — were abandoned within months. I attended many of them. I saw the facilitators checking their phones, rushing through conversations, and making empty promises. The truth? They weren’t listening — they were performing. Just another box to check. Even with the few recent meetings, I’ve been left out for speaking up. The meetings were consistently scheduled during times when I was not in the building. To the Few Good Ones To the handful of coaches and ops who still try to lead with integrity: this letter is not directed at you. You’ve tried to hold the line. But you’ve been outnumbered, outpaced, and overshadowed by a leadership structure that values optics over outcomes and loyalty over competence. This Place Doesn’t Need Another Wake-Up Call I stayed longer than I should have. I gave more patience than this place deserved. I hoped for change — that someone, somewhere, would finally do the right thing. That hope is gone. There’s no accountability here. No transparency. No honest leadership. Just a culture of cover-ups, favoritism, and performative management. Even complaints sent to the ethics department are met with silence and no reply. I will complete any remaining responsibilities with professionalism — not because this company deserves it, but because I still hold myself to a higher standard than those who run it. Don’t insult my intelligence with a hollow “we’re sorry to see you go.” You’re not. You’ll fill the gap with another unqualified yes-man, and the cycle will continue — until enough people walk out or speak up. Consider this both. Sincerely, Andrew Wagner,

questionname

Probably GM, most of their vehicles are gas or diesel

Safe_Manner_1879

\>Isn't this going to bankrupt Tesla? They still get carbon credits in China and Europa, and can eat the loss of them in US. The question is what will happen to GM electric cars, or Rivian?

Safe_Manner_1879

Tesla can eat the loss of carbon credits, I ask you this, can GM or Rivian eat the loss?

UnKossef

Battery tech will benefit the people who buy EVs. I bought one 6 years ago and it's paid for itself in fuel and maintenance costs. It's a GM product. Investing in battery tech is kinda dumb. The biggest car manufacturers stand to benefit the most, but it'll cut into their profits from gas cars. I was interested in QS a while ago but with the funding from VW, if QS ever brings a viable product to market VW will buy the rest of the company for the parents. Battery tech also has the potential to revolutionize energy systems, but it'll be implemented by the biggest energy companies, again cutting into profits from fossil fuels. It's best to invest in the market, as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Hammerhandle

My first ever investment was in GM in 2008! It was only $100 but completely soured my interest in the stock market for over a decade.

16semesters

> You can be the biggest customer and not know how to run the business It's why I can't be the GM of my local Taco Bell.

Sabunit

Looks like Motley Fool/Yahoo just copied half of my DD and rushed it into an article 😂 [Prediction: This Could Be the Next Tech Multibagger](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/prediction-could-next-tech-multibagger-130000110.html) Points they suddenly bring up (that were not mainstream before my post): The whole “cyclical perception” narrative -> exactly what I wrote. Micron as the AI infrastructure backbone, not just a DRAM supplier. Risks like China ban and Samsung competition framed in the same way. The only thing they expanded on was 2025 Q4 guidance (revenue $11.1-11.3B, GM 44-45%, EPS $2.78-2.92) - which is new and fair to add. But let’s be real: retail pointed out this undervaluation and AI backbone edge first. Now the financial media is just catching up.

Mouse1701

To all the people in this forum say Greeks matter. I guarantee the Greeks were secondary in having the winning trade they were not the most important thing. I am concerned about the CEO of GM sold all shares in GM and the stock options not too long ago. I prefer buying calls vs puts when insider trading is considered. To the person that traded a option on a stock where the CFO bought shares I have to say you did your homework and it paid off. If you notice most financial news networks never place a emphasize on the CEOs and the top brass buying their own shares of stock. Because it doesn't fit their narrative.

InformalMeal9828

In a moment of weakness I joined the grandmasterobi guys discord trying to see if I could get my beak wet on a 100% move and immediately got DMed by the discord GM with broken English canned responses about selling courses, I’d rather be broke and lose money here than buy a fucking course

Legolas_i_am

GM regards

Prudent-Corgi3793

Tesla ranks 7th among automakers by net income. Here are the top 11 (to include Ford at #11): | Name | Net Income (USD) | P/E Ratio (TTM) | Market Cap (USD) | |:-|:-|:-|:-| | Toyota | $38.91B | 9.08 | $260.17B | | Hyundai | $15.50B | 4.35 | $39.49B | | Volkswagen | $14.35B | 6.38 | $59.17B | | Mercedez-Benz | $11.34B | 7.60 | $59.73B | | Kia | $10.73B | 4.22 | $30.39B | | BMW | $10.26B | 7.65 | $63.16B | | Tesla | $8.05B | 185.14 | $1132B | | BYD | $7.94B | 16.74 | $132.68B | | GM | $7.10B | 5.45 | $55.47B | | Honda | $6.99B | 7.37 | $44.83B | | Ford | $5.51B | 10.4 | $46.72B | Note that these P/E ratios all come from companiesmarketcap.com, which may be different than other sources. Most of these automakers trade with P/E multiples in the single digits. Global EV leader BYD had a multiple in the double digits, but its P/E ratio is rapidly compressing due to intensifying competition both from legacy automakers and domestically. And then there's Tesla defying gravity not just with a P/E ratio in the double digits, but near 200 (above 200 based on GAAP P/E). It completely makes sense that it would want to exit the auto market as soon as possible and to distance itself from this stigma.

Mariox

This is a decision between Tesla shareholders and Elon, it don't matter what anyone else thinks. You think there is anyone else in the world would could be CEO of an EV company and make it a success? RIVN, LCID, LOT, FFAI, PSNY, WKHS all unprofitable and failing EV companies. GM, STLA, F all gave up on self driving tech and will buy it from someone else (likely Tesla FSD) You want to Cracker Barrel Tesla? People don't like progressive woke junk. I get it, Elon pissed of the far-left extremists by supporting humanity, free speech and democracy. Elon did not do any salute, he was taking his heart and giving it out to people, it is a common gesture that many people do. Technically it isn't a $1 trillion pay package, it is a $450 million pay package, but the shares will be worth $1 trillion if all 12 trenches are awarded. People may hate me saying this, but Tesla is likely to hit $8.5 trillion marketcap within 10 years. Maybe I am crazy because I also think PLTR could reach $4 trillion market cap in 10 years.

Catwz

guys I was thinking: I'm from Brazil and I have a small store here. I mainly sell products imported from the USA or from US companies that produce locally: Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, P&G, Nike, Johnson & Johnson, Apple... with the profits from the sales I convert my money to dollars and send it back to the USA: SPY, VOO and shit, or I consume american products like GM (my car), Nvidia, AMD, Spotify, Netflix... It's like the people in my country are working for the USA. It's impossible for the united states not to be the richest country in the world. I don't know who came up with the idea of opening your economy to the world but that guy is a genius

L0nz

Look I'm certainly no fan of Musk, but none of what you've linked supports your assertion that the board knew his targets would likely be met. They had projections that some of the turnover and profit targets might be met but not the market cap targets, which basically nobody but Musk thought would happen because they were insane. From the court case: > “You know, with the 2012 plan everybody liked basically we started off by saying we got to double the market cap for you to get anything. Well, now the market cap had grown to 50 billion and it was up to 59 billion by the time they actually approved the plan. But this idea, 50 billion, that’s a nice round number. I think at the end of 2017, Ford was worth about 49 billion. I think that GM was worth about 58 billion. So this is: Every time we’ll get another Ford or a GM. I think that just kind of resonated.”); Trial Tr. at 231:11–16 (Ehrenpreis) (“Q. . . . So these options, by the way, are worth roughly the value, the market cap of Ford; right? A. That’s true.”); id. at 1397:1–5 (Buss) (“I mean, again, those market cap goals, you know, were totally insane. I mean, you literally had to create a Ford, GM, or FedEx every ten months. Every ten months. And maintain it, right? So, okay, wow, that’s pretty nuts.”) You can look up contemporaneous press reports to see how people viewed this at the time. [The New York Times has this to say](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/business/dealbook/tesla-elon-musk-pay.html): >But to put these numbers in perspective, Tesla is worth only about $59 billion today. >If Mr. Musk were somehow to increase the value of Tesla to $650 billion — a figure many experts would contend is laughably impossible and would make Tesla one of the five largest companies in the United States, based on current valuations — his stock award could be worth as much as $55 billion (assuming the company does not issue any more shares over the next decade, which is unrealistic). >...Mr. Musk’s compensation plan is no illusion: He gets paid only if the company succeeds over the long term with significant gains in market cap. And it’s impossible for him to manipulate the system by trying to prop up the stock price for a temporary period. Under the terms of the arrangement, even once his shares vest, he has to hold them an additional five years before he is allowed to sell them. >The way the arrangement is structured, each milestone is a blunt instrument: He either reaches it or gets nothing. >“If all that happens over the next 10 years is that Tesla’s value grows by 80 or 90 percent, then my amount of compensation would be zero,” he said. (His calculations were based on the stock price at the beginning of this year when the company was worth about $50 billion.) >Still, he contended, “I actually see the potential for Tesla to become a trillion-dollar company within a 10-year period.” >As executive compensation plans go, Tesla’s is about as friendly to shareholders as they come. Many other companies have installed outsize packages that often come at the expense of shareholders because the executives get paid even when they underperform their peers.

Hermes113

Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) Jackson supported high tariffs that helped Northern industrialists (many were his political allies) while hurting Southern planters. His allies in Northern manufacturing gained protection from foreign competition. Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865) Lincoln backed the Morrill Tariff (1861), which greatly raised duties on imported goods. It directly benefited Northern industrial backers (steel, textiles, rail equipment makers), many of whom funded the Republican Party. William McKinley (1897–1901) A champion of tariffs, he supported protection for steel, textiles, and manufacturing industries — many of which bankrolled his campaigns. Tariff laws often read like industry wish-lists. Warren G. Harding (1921–1923) Signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 to protect farmers and manufacturers, particularly agribusiness allies. His administration was notorious for helping friends financially (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal overlapped with tariff beneficiaries). Herbert Hoover (1929–1933) Signed the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act (1930) after intense lobbying. It raised tariffs on 20,000 goods, directly shielding well-connected industries (agriculture, manufacturing) that supported Hoover politically. Economists argue it worsened the Great Depression, but special interests got immediate protection. Ronald Reagan (1980s) Imposed “voluntary export restraints” on Japanese carmakers after pressure from U.S. automakers (Ford, GM, Chrysler), who were strong political allies of the administration. George W. Bush (2002) Enacted steel tariffs (up to 30%) to protect the U.S. steel industry. The move directly benefited steel executives and unions who were politically important in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Republican or Democrat the point is President use Tarrifs to protect friends Maybe your blue hair dyed seeped too far into your brain for you to think 😭😭😭

Hermes113

You want direct Tarrifs examples.. sure.. Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) Jackson supported high tariffs that helped Northern industrialists (many were his political allies) while hurting Southern planters. His allies in Northern manufacturing gained protection from foreign competition. Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865) Lincoln backed the Morrill Tariff (1861), which greatly raised duties on imported goods. It directly benefited Northern industrial backers (steel, textiles, rail equipment makers), many of whom funded the Republican Party. William McKinley (1897–1901) A champion of tariffs, he supported protection for steel, textiles, and manufacturing industries — many of which bankrolled his campaigns. Warren G. Harding (1921–1923) Signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 to protect farmers and manufacturers, particularly agribusiness allies. His administration was notorious for helping friends financially (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal overlapped with tariff beneficiaries). Herbert Hoover (1929–1933) Signed the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act (1930) after intense lobbying. It raised tariffs on 20,000 goods, directly shielding well-connected industries (agriculture, manufacturing) that supported Hoover politically. Economists argue it worsened the Great Depression, but special interests got immediate protection. Ronald Reagan (1980s) Imposed “voluntary export restraints” on Japanese carmakers after pressure from U.S. automakers (Ford, GM, Chrysler), who were strong political allies of the administration. George W. Bush (2002) Enacted steel tariffs (up to 30%) to protect the U.S. steel industry. The move directly benefited steel executives and unions who were politically important in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Fucking monkey brained sheep

palindromic

Wonder which CEO, Ford or GM, ponied up the big $ for that Hyundai raid.. what an absolute shitshow brainworms move when you’re trying to encourage mfg here

IcyEntertainment7122

I don't understand this or their overall valuation. They sell almost half the units GM does, had half the Q2 earnings GM did, yet somehow GM is valued at 55 billion and Tesla at 1 trillion.

adamsmith93

The company has grown in other areas like energy expansion. Competition is picking up in China yes but BYD isn't available in NA, a huge car market. Other competitors like GM and Ford are still burning cash. No other EV compares to Tesla's vehicles. Likewise they've all adopted NACS too, cornering the charging market. AI is being used in their self driving, something they've launched publicly and are expanding everyday. Not to mention the Optimus stuff.

Basat098

Non-EV cars are where automakers make a majority of their money, no doubt there. But that’s exactly why EV credits matter. Ford lost $1.1B on EVs in Q2 2025 (on just 34,000 EVs sold), GM’s EV division is still running at a negative 8–10% margin, and Tesla only keeps margins positive because of scale and $1.8B in regulatory credit sales last year. Automakers are subsidizing EV losses with non-EV car profits, betting future demand will be there. If the federal subsidies disappear on September 30th, that demand floor vanishes. EV sales already fell 31% in China in 2019, the month after Beijing cut subsidies; the same cliff risk exists here. The industry has sunk hundreds of billions into EV capex and supply chains on the assumption that subsidies and incentives bridge the gap. If that bridge is pulled, those investments turn into an earnings drag overnight, and Wall Street punishes the stocks. That’s why it’s a market risk.

Basat098

EV credits might sound like a side issue, but they’re critical because autos aren’t just about cars; they’re tied into the whole industrial and jobs engine of the U.S. Right now, EV demand is being artificially supported by the $7,500 new / $4,000 used credits. If those credits vanish on September 30, the demand cliff is immediate. Automakers like GM, Ford, and Tesla have already sunk billions into EV capacity and supply chains. Without subsidies, margins collapse, production slows, and the ripple effect hits into other industries: steel, lithium, battery suppliers, dealers, and even financing arms. We’ve seen this before, when the cash-for-clunkers program ended in 2009, auto sales fell back sharply within a month. So no, I’m not saying EV credits are the single biggest macro issue, but dismissing them as irrelevant misses the point. Pulling support for a sector that’s already strained can be a major drag on Q4.

Only-For-Fun-No-Pol

Notifications about end of EV credit ending today with it hurting F, Tesla, and GM, but for whatever reason Rivian is green. 

Ok_Cry7572

GM CEO Mary Barra has sold 40% of her holdings in General Motors stock

omegacrunch

Are GM* cultists still looking for secret signs? Sure it will last awhile but yhus far the btc strategy has done nothing for Bed Ba... I mean GM*

bingojed

I’m not sure a suburban sized EV SUV would sell. GM already makes one. GM and Ford and Rivian and Tesla also all sell various forms of pickups - the number one vehicles in the US, and none of those vehicles sell well. A real and better priced 3 row SUV EV like Hyundai sells with the Ioniq 9 or Kia EV9 might do better than the Model X. I do think the Y L was a smart move, but again I think this will also splinter the Ys sales. A Corolla Cross / Chevy Trax or even slightly smaller compact SUV EV might be a decent direction, though again I think this would splinter the Y and 3s sales. They should have done a Maverick sized small EV pickup instead of the over ambitious and flawed Cybertruck. Something lower priced with a more modest approach. But they didn’t, and I very much doubt they will.

cdezdr

It means Ford and GM cannot innovate so eventually their luxury vehicles will not be luxury.

Sure_Group7471

What kind of simulation are we living in huh? Where a communist country is crowded with competition, having price wars and choice while a capitalist country car prices through the roof. Ford and GM have literally stated in their quarterly reports that they want to focus on making expensive high margin vehicles so that they don’t have to compete on cost. Isn’t capitalism supposed to make things cheaper for the consumer?

Walking72

Trump threatens to nationalize GM if they bring back the trans Am

shindiggaa

Best GM in sports history

SerialStrategist

Didn't the federal government do this with GM?

ShiftIll3642

GM fellow bulls.anither day to win money buy Nvidia and make fun of poor bers https://preview.redd.it/cgtxg1p5dylf1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=510b8098fa33a22e834fc580a88efea583e75c82

1337bobbarker

I remember realizing this back in the early 2000's when they invited GM and Coca Cola to help with a labor bill.

unurbane

It was never a free market though. It’s always been heavily manipulated. See the auto industry forced to make tanks/planes in WWII, financial crisis of ‘08, the buying of GM to stabilize markets, Solyndra incentives, vaccine rollout and mask production in 2020, purchase of Intel (10%) this week, etc etc.

LostAbbott

I mean the Obama administration took part ownership in GM during the 2008 recession.  I maybe different, but set precedent for Trump to take it a step further. I think the inflection point for these kind of problems was when they decided "Too Big to fail" was a legitimate reason to not let companies fail.  Capitalism absolutely needs creative destruction. If the government can stop that then we end up with shitty zombie companies that become a significant drag on the economy.

Ralwus

You make good points. >If anything, refusing to expand here only opens the door wider for Tesla, GM, and Ford to catch up Unfortunately, this isn't happening. There is no push towards affordable EVs in the US. China has $10k EVs, and we don't. I don't think there is any market pressure to change this. China is happy to watch us fall behind.

-Asar-

automakers already run huge plants in the US (Toyota, BMW, Kia, Hyundai, even Tesla in Fremont & Austin) while paying american wages. Labor is expensive, but scale, automation, and local supply chains offset that. If BYD sees long-term demand, the economics of building here aren’t impossible and that logic cuts both ways. The US also doesn’t ‘want’ to share Silicon Valley chip design, AI, or aerospace know-how, but companies expand globally because markets demand it. BYD setting up in the US isn’t ‘helping America’ out of kindness - it’s capturing market share. If anything, refusing to expand here only opens the door wider for Tesla, GM, and Ford to catch up

Big_Quote_1776

Intel is hemorrhaging cash, its a zombie company that will become the next Blackberry (in BB's current state).  They applied for cash under the CHIPS (Biden) Act and that has equity kickers in it.  So did the 08 bailout funds to banks - that was also cash for equity. The US (really) does not have free government welfare for businesses, it comes with an equity cost. Intel appeared to be drawing the funds with no real (need) to increase production,  so Trump pulled the trigger on the kicker requirements - which will dilute stupid shareholders that own the pig. Intel is also getting cash from Berkshire Hathaway under much more egregious terms (ask AIG).   Intel will lose around $12-$15 billion this year in negative cash flow from dumb products.  Desktops, MacMini kills them.  Laptops, MacPro/Air mops the Intel puke off the floor.   Servers.. AMD... AI, Intel is not even a glimmer in a semen squiggly eye, NVDA is 99.9% of that market.  Mobile... Nada, that's Qualcomm or Apple Bionic.   Intel will be left making $3 electric window processors for GM and Ford. If you own it, sell it, before the shorts rip it to $5.   Then do your homework and become real investors instead of a candlelight prayer group.

Gr8WallofChinatown

Intel was already crushing itself. It’s still run poorly. Their previous and current CEO do not give a shit about intel at all. Sad part is that this company is the GM/FORD of chips. USA will keep bailing them out because they’re domestic.

Le-D

Nvidia’s Q2 numbers look huge on the surface (+56% YoY revenue, +61% YoY net income), but the 10-Q shows cracks that explain the –5% after-hours dip (now closer to –2.5%). Data Center mix: Compute –1% QoQ (~$4B H20 hole), Networking +46% QoQ. Core demand (GPU) slowed, networking masked it. One-offs: $180m reserve release on H20 and $2.2B equity gains padded EPS/margins. Margins: 72% GM looks great but YoY actually down due to mix shift (rack-scale vs. HGX). Q1’s $4.5B H20 charge made this quarter look cleaner. Working capital pressure: AR $27.8B (DSO 54 days ↑), inventory $15B, purchase commitments $45.8B. Cash flow fell to $15.4B from $27.4B last quarter. Concentration: Hyperscalers still ~50% of DC revenue; digestion + China ban = volatility. At a $3T+ market cap, the bar is perfection. Markets punish red flags more than they reward beats for Nvidia. Calling this an “overreaction” misses the point: this is a healthy repricing of risk in a growth stock. 👉 If you want the details, read the 10-Q, not just the press release: SEC filing.[NVIDIA 10Q](https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001045810/2e217538-c226-4d05-8f74-aaca89a21b33.pdf) By the way Autonomous/robotics/ProViz: Remain immaterial (<2% of sales). Optional upside only. So BUY case relies on belief in rapid Blackwell uptake, sustained hyperscaler budgets, and networking as a growth lever. SELL case centers on structural saturation, China blockade, and margin erosion once growth normalizes. In the short term (Q3 & H2) I think the stance will be NEUTRAL (you may expect a price consolidation) as fundamentals remain stellar but quality of growth is deteriorating, valuation is highly sensitive to Data Center compute trajectory. So until evidence shows hyperscaler digestion is temporary, risk/reward is balanced, not asymmetric.

Le-D

Nvidia’s Q2 numbers look huge on the surface (+56% YoY revenue, +61% YoY net income), but the 10-Q shows cracks that explain the –5% after-hours dip (now closer to –2.5%). Data Center mix: Compute –1% QoQ (~$4B H20 hole), Networking +46% QoQ. Core demand (GPU) slowed, networking masked it. One-offs: $180m reserve release on H20 and $2.2B equity gains padded EPS/margins. Margins: 72% GM looks great but YoY actually down due to mix shift (rack-scale vs. HGX). Q1’s $4.5B H20 charge made this quarter look cleaner. Working capital pressure: AR $27.8B (DSO 54 days ↑), inventory $15B, purchase commitments $45.8B. Cash flow fell to $15.4B from $27.4B last quarter. Concentration: Hyperscalers still ~50% of DC revenue; digestion + China ban = volatility. At a $3T+ market cap, the bar is perfection. Markets punish red flags more than they reward beats for Nvidia. Calling this an “overreaction” misses the point: this is a healthy repricing of risk in a growth stock. 👉 If you want the details, read the 10-Q, not just the press release: SEC filing.[NVIDIA 10Q](https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001045810/2e217538-c226-4d05-8f74-aaca89a21b33.pdf) By the way Autonomous/robotics/ProViz: Remain immaterial (<2% of sales). Optional upside only. So BUY case relies on belief in rapid Blackwell uptake, sustained hyperscaler budgets, and networking as a growth lever. SELL case centers on structural saturation, China blockade, and margin erosion once growth normalizes. In the short term (Q3 & H2) I think the stance will be NEUTRAL (you may expect a price consolidation) as fundamentals remain stellar but quality of growth is deteriorating, valuation is highly sensitive to Data Center compute trajectory. So until evidence shows hyperscaler digestion is temporary, risk/reward is balanced, not asymmetric.

Rare-ish_Birb

Instead of using that $60 billion buyback authorization to buy back NVDA shares, Jensen could just buy Target, Ford, GM or CVNA. OR....3 of the top 10 US regional banks OR....CRWV *and* Reddit

Shdwrptr

I have a good amount of RKLB but it makes no sense for the government to buy a stake. SpaceX has the vast majority of the government launch contracts and RKLB doesn’t have the launch capabilities of SpaceX. I think that you’re wrong that the government can’t buy a stake of a private company. Nationalizing a private company has been done in the past like in 2008 with GM

thecommuteguy

You must have forgotten that the US government effectively took over GM when they provided the bailout money during the financial crisis. The US made money on the shares that were sold.

Tinfoilheadx

KOLS SQUEEZE INCOMING 40% FLOAT, 5 days to cover WSB mods are in on it, bloomberg is in on it. All criminals.  Every KOLS post gets removed. The mods here got paid big to never let a GM€ happen again.

Dude_HaHa

Day 1: NVDA bad guidance on the revenue loss from H20 chips. Day 2: Deepseek R2 drops, can run on a potato GPU and buck breaks OpenAI, Claude and Gemini. Day 3: Gyna announces their own Huawei chip that outperforms NVDA's Blackwell. DAY 4: Circuit Breakers. NVDA, META, MSFT take the elevator straight down at the speed of light. Pandemonium on QQQ, SOXL trades like a penny Stonk. Day 5: 200% Tariffs on Gyna. Day 6: Circuit breakers Level - 2. VIX at 80. Safest bets are Boomer stonks like CAT, KHC, F, GM and KO. Jensen tears his leather jacket right on live TV and walks off the NVDA campus.

Euphoric-Guess-1277

Bro it’s an automaker, it should be max $20. A P/E of ~10 is pretty standard for the industry (Toyota, GM, etc.)

blackdog543

Technically, Joe Biden did an infrastructure deal that was widely held up by Republicans in their districts as a great thing when an old bridge or road or building was going to get renovated. Even Trump in his first term talked about getting an infrastructure bill, but was in too much debt to do it. This is corporate socialism at it's worst. Obama took a stake in GM after the disastrous Bush Banking Recession and the Republicans went CRAZY with cries of "socialism". Mitt Romney said they should have let GM go bankrupt and "picked up the pieces later". This is EXACTLY the same thing. At least Obama got paid back. Trump might see Intel go bankrupt they're in such bad shape.

Awesome____Sauce

i remember when the US collapsed after taking a stake in GM

Bad-Touch-Monkey

I tried to rationalize this along the lines of GM and Fannie/Freddie from 2008ish but the circumstances were far different then. I never agreed with the “too big to fail” argument but that is another matter. This is unwarranted by the evidence at hand and very worrisome.

ecclecticcajun

Not even close to the **$50 billion** Nobama gave GM during the 2008–2009 bailouts. And got nothing for it but crappy cars.

kabekew

But GM was the government taking over a failed company to keep it running, versus Intel where government invested $9 billion in subsidies to help them expand, and received equity to hopefully recover that money from later profits.

Ill_Field_7915

How is this different than GM in 2008 under… Obama?

neverpost4

The old GM died in 2008. The new GM is a totally different company. They are pretending that it is the same company for marketing reasons.

Strict-Comfort-1337

I guess Obama was a fascist because there was a time when the government owned 60% of GM and he was the president. Try to doing some research and taking a breath before you post because now you look foolish

RopeMurky5410

Obama didn’t bail out the banks; Bush did. It was 2008. Too Big to Fail was set in 2008. He did bail out GM.

MagicBeanstalks

For January. GM because it’s been hit hard consistently in prior crashes.

Violent_Mud_Butt

Ford and GM continue to climb despite everything about the current economy being horrible for them. Literal proof of a market-wide bubble.

Lovevas

It's not free shares, it's paid by US government, just like what they did when they got \~60% GM shares during 2008-2009.

WhiteMessyKen

It's like GM. They refuse to let these old declining businesses natrually die from underperforming, always getting some type of government assistance

nocticis

Chat thinks this is gonna be like GM - style rescue and not Citi style recovery 💀

AZJenniferJames

Fun Fact: In Dec 2008 George W. Bush used TARP funds and gave loans to bailout GM. In 2009 Obama increased the bailout dramatically and the US government took a 60% equity position in the newly constituted GM business. These shares did have voting rights, effectively giving the federal government control of the company. The government later sold its shares for over a $10b loss. The Intel deal converts grants (corporate welfare) from the CHIPS Act to an equity position. The shares DO NOT include voting rights therefore no government control. Even if those shares are later sold at a loss, it still results in a gain for the US taxpayer as the equity stake was acquired with funds that would have been given away without this deal. The only people who could be hurt would be current shareholders because of dilution. After the announcement of the equity stake however, the INTC shares moved up 6%. So this deal appears to be a win/win/win. Another FunFact: The US Government also held equity positions during the Obama administration in Chrysler, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, American Airlines, Delta, United, and Southwest Airlines. It wasn’t a coup, fascism, or the downfall of democracy then or in previous administrations when the government took equity positions. It will not be this time either. Source: I was alive in 2009 and paid attention.

old_Spivey

Yes, if you are defining the word for a 9th grade geography class. But the practice of government ownership of public companies is socialism, whether it be GM in 2008 or Intel in 2025.

Donexodus

Expiry date? Why GM specifically?

MagicBeanstalks

40$ GM puts expiring next year

Wcked_Production

I think there’s a huge liability in their business. Historically just looking at all the intel computers from the past 35 years and to see them being replaced is a weird thing. I don’t know how they’re going to recover because the competition is just better. Unless they have a product that is cheaper and better than the competition then I’m not sure they’ll ever be able to turn around. It’s not like GM where people need vehicles. I’m not sure Intel has that same necessity.

Fiveofthem

Lol you were probably crying when Obama bailed out GM.

CoffeeMaker999

Meeseeks! GM to you!!

WaterSign27

You mean the $16 billion that GM just pocketed, and never paid back. Despite BW Jr, the man who created the entire deal with all the heads of wallstreet. That Obama revealed what a traitor the left he was by immediately signing that Bush deal. The same ones that the republicans helped craft, the blamed Obama for still to this day. Just like Republicans will blame the effects of the Big Beautiful Bill, the worst effects of which are not scheduled to come into effect until after the election. Is that the false equivalence you were bringing up?

jonnyrockets

100 percent agree. The fab aspect used to be treated as “cheap labour low margin let them do it” - and now the manufacturing has gotten much more sophisticated and the capital equipment, engineering skills/experience and supply chain is almost ALL in Taiwan. Crazy turn of events. And the risk you noted is 100% real and a point of vulnerability for USA business, economy and military. I’m sure the smart people in the hidden rooms know this. I’m not sure what the answer is - but it’s certainly not trying to fluff up GM to beat Toyota - but orders of magnitude more difficult and dangerous. This goes way beyond “bring back manufacturing” !

Mission-Carry-887

Where was his tweet when Obama bought a stake in GM?

PeterThielWorshipper

Why wouldn’t it be? The US government owned GM for some time

EvolvingDior

So were the bailouts of AIG and GM... yet the government got stock then, too.

jonnyrockets

Very good points. But no matter what, propping up companies with government intervention is most likely a death sentence with global competition. It’s one thing to ensure food and water, shelter and infrastructure is provided to all citizens (and potential soldiers!) - nobody wants an adversary to restrict one’s subsistence. Sanctions are bad enough for bad actors - but let’s leave that argument aside. The 4 to 3 to 2 nm tech is game-changing and it’s no guarantee NVDA (ASML) will ultimately be leaders in this space in 10 years - there are rumours of 2nm in China but who knows. ASML is pretty solid since nobody can do what they do without billions of dollars and decades of education and infrastructure and expertise - that’s just to catch a moving train. Same is true for Taiwan in general with all their technology, expertise, training, education, and economies of scale with so many suppliers also local. These aren’t software companies that can move anywhere, they are embedded in their whole society and culture and require a ton of capital equipment and expertise. This ain’t GM/Ford innovating a dual over head cam engine in 1980. They can’t catch up. It’s impossible. Very high risk. This feels really wrong and dangerous for both Intel and other companies that Trump wants a piece of - I’m not sure what 10% gives them exactly but this game is hard enough to play. I wish there was more talk of innovation and education within the USA rather than trying to bring back shoes, widgets, tshirts and whatever else is manufactured - selling 1950 In 2025 is insanity. I love the tax incentives for business BUT it needs to include elite levels of education and capital investments - I’m not sure there’s enough of that. One of the drawbacks to the income divide is that more and more young people aren’t able to get ivy-league level education and learn to collaborate with other elite thinkers and be the next engineers and entrepreneurs the country needs. More and more of those are from India and China and they are learning to beat the USA in the USA - it’s ugly and sorry if it sounds racist, because it’s not. It’s more about geopolitics, sovereignty and protecting your culture, and national defence. As long as those things are important, you need to protect it. I despise Trump, but he’s done some good things that were long overdue. And necessary. I’m not sure about this move, though I understand it in principle. Just disagree. Granted. Not my decision. I’m Canadian. We have our own problems. 😍

Try_finger-but_hole

I don’t know. Do we really want to invest in a company with bad fundamentals, while also operating in both designing and manufacturing, meaning it has double the dangers from macro economy than a company operating in one? This reminds me of CITI, AIF, and GM. Did they really came back from the government stakes?

LameDuckDonald

When Obama did this to save GM it was the end of the world. Of course, he was half black.

Mental-At-ThirtyFive

it is about policy - it is not about Trump. We can easily point out those countries, small and large who are pursuing it. We do it too all the time. Congress picks winners and losers depending upon their friends and families - lobbyists are families for those in power. Given that, these stakes - good example is GM and Chrysler after the 2008 wipe out. Missed opportunities to take stakes are at the agencies like NIH, DARPA, etc

EvolvingDior

The US took a stake in GM when it bailed them out. Same for AIG.

fushiginagaijin

I wouldn’t. Nothing good has ever come from government getting in bed with private businesses. Just look at GM and Chrysler.

meshreplacer

So you think it is fair to just hand them billions for their greed and incompetence and we get nothing in return? Better yet would be we don't give them a penny and let the market decide but unfortunately Democrats/Republicans thought just handing out billions of taxpayer dollars to a private for profit company that squandered billions is something we should just give away? They already blew through the first tranche and went on a firing spree and deciding to slowdown/not build fabs. Obama did something similar with GM.