GM

Negative-Picture-511

GM spends 3 billion on advertising and they have to. Tesla spends zero on advertising but something similar on the Roadster development but the world took notice. Free advertising that’s the plot.

Disastrous-Bed-3431

You mean like GM taking money from government agencies year after year...

Teiagon

You have to keep in mind that the American economy hinges on the success of the AI enterprise at this point. Just like GM and banks (ex Lehman, Bear Sterns) in 2008, the government (tax payers) could very well be the backstop to any catastrophic scenario.

Already-Price-Tin

Shareholders don't get rescued in a government bailout. If you invested $1000 in Citibank in January 2006, the government will have saved your investment from going to zero in November 2008, but it would barely hang on and be worth about $25 at bottom in March 2009, and climb up over 20 years to now be worth $400. If you invested $1000 in AIG in January 2006, the government would've bailed you out by diluting your stock in September 2008, your investment would've bottomed out at around $5 in March 2009, and climbed back up to about $96 today. If you invested $1000 in GM in January 2006, you would've lost everything. The government bailout of the company explicitly wiped out any existing shareholders and left them with nothing. So yeah, maybe a government bailout could happen. But that's not an investment thesis.

PM-ME-YOUR-HAPPY

Ford and GM are both up today.

Fluid_Strategy7368

and people still buy that sh!t Luce too. Not to mention that Jag Type 01. And believe every word that comes out of the mouth of GM CEO Mary B. And FORD's cars are all made in China now and imported back to US.

Prior-Tie3624

Setting aside his personality, Elon Musk really is a genius. Toyota, GM, and Ford couldn’t build a car this incredible—not even if they had until the year 2100. It can drive on walls and adjust its orientation while in mid-air; honestly, I can’t think about anything else right now.

bomber991

Is it a gimmick with no practical use? Yeah of course it is. Is it badass awesome? Absolutely. I want one. More Tesla stock has been purchased. GM over there struggling with deciding to put Apple CarPlay back in there cars and Tesla is over there making cars without steering wheels that drive themselves, and cars with spacex thrusters on them.

Cryptosupergod

You are the one who claimed "spent a fortune". Whatever the definition of a fortune is to you and then to a trillion dollar company is still another thing. But showing of tech and progress as a semi tech company is a bad thing? You're an idiot. You should work at GM.

NeonRedHerring

I don’t like Elon’s politics or horde of trillions of dollars, but this stunt panders to anyone who likes cool shit. If China did this we’d be saying “damn we’re way behind.” If GM did this we’d be like “fucking cool, are they now competing with NASA?” You can dislike the man and acknowledge the product is pretty sick.

Ok-Clerk393

Blah blah blah everything sucks I hate my life blah blah blah. GM invented active suspension in the fucking 80s and had it in just about every performance car they made in the early 2010s. NOBODY WOULD GIVE A FUCK. I am so far from a Tesla person but these dumb fucks crying about how this isn’t cool as shit are losers.

Fast_Instance2173

They don’t sell them here cuz the government needed to protect the traditional American automakers: Ford, GM, Chevy; those tariffs and fees were in place for a while. Similar thing they did in the 80s-90s on Japanese motorcycles to try and protect Harley Davidsons shitty fucking product from losing market share.

Immediate_Hope_5694

Ford and GM are "making" $50 billion in revenue a quarter and are actually profitable, not 'profitable before calculating expenses' garbage. Guess how much those two are worth?

DoobsNDeeps

Maybe it's peak, maybe it's not. But with the valuation where it's at, there's no point in holding to find out until we see GM resume an upward march. If you knew how Wall Street dcfs work you'd know that the stock is over valued and so everyone is riding the financial momentum. Peak GM will be the key to the top and any time the GM slips, the stock will slip

SpicyElixer

Product transition costs and currency fluctuations make a 1% margin variance statistical noise. Applying "Peak GM" to TSMC because of a 1% quarterly fluctuation is funny. TSM is ramping up and stable while dealing with costly transitioning to the new 2nm node. But yes, timing selloffs like this is exactly the type of shit bros on Wall Street would do. They wouldn’t call it peak GM though in this case.

DoobsNDeeps

You're all retarded, it sold off because the gross margin slipped, and guided with a lower floor. Revenue growth doesn't matter anymore, everyone is just tying to time the peak GM. How tf do you guys not know this.

130_R

Integrateds are fuk bro. Until CLF makes a move into long products, totally dependent on 12 yr loans on Doge and GM pickemup trucks.

Already-Price-Tin

> I mean they are also growing at the rate that no business has grown before. They are doing that through additional fundraising. It does nothing to refute the "it's overhyped" thesis to point out that there's a lot of hype. Anthropic has raised something like $100 billion in the last year alone, and we know of a $42 billion deal for debt from Broadcom. That money has to come from somewhere, and the macroeconomic trends are presenting headwinds for the first time in this current AI cycle: higher interest rates, high energy prices, data center projects over budget and behind schedule, etc. OpenAI's deals with Oracle and Softbank are actually threatening the solvency of both of those. An asset retaining value doesn't mean that the person who owns the asset can't run out of money operating that asset. Sometimes the best play is to wait for the current owner to run out of money, and then buy that valuable thing at fire sale prices. We have dozens of household name brands that went through that cycle, from GM to Hostess to basically everything Bending Spoons owns. Being invested in the previous owner doesn't guarantee being invested in the product in the future.

Entire-Ad-7339

I’m sure Ford and GM was saying the same thing 15 years ago.

mattmentecky

Adjusted for inflation GM was $245B in debt and spent $120B between 2005-2009, of course they got a gov bailout, split the company in two, declared bankruptcy and walked away from their debt...

Rarpiz

An aside: I'm glad that some auto makers have placed service access ports for easy fuel pump replacements under the rear seats of their vehicles. HOWEVER, I wish a pox upon the other automakers (looking at you Ford and GM) who require you DROP the entire fuel tank to replace the goddamn fuel pump! Sorry, not wallstreet-related, but for those of us who have hobbies outside of this forum ;)

OG_Tater

“You want to pay FOUR BILLION for an electric car company that has delivered like 20,000 cars!?!? That’s valued like GM who delivers hundreds of thousands!!” Yes, yes I did. I’d rather it went public earlier. But here we are.

AlasKansastan

I don’t like the guy at all but his companies have a higher payroll than GM.

DressPrestigious7088

GM is doing very well under Kurt Kelty.

The_Macro_Investor

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0B9Y27GM2 My headboard has a little shelf, which is why I’m able to attach it there.  The hinges are a bit stiff to hold the iPad in place and not sink or droop , which consequentially makes it hard to adjust, but I think the trade off is worth it.

music_is_gud

GM cutie patootie!

zedk47

Dumped all my NVDA shares. Video games are a dead thing. Put it all on safe bets like Enron and GM.

BaggyMonny

Yeah, man, I think that's a great idea. I didn't want to put all my eggs in the same basket so I came up with a fullproof diversified plan. Followed all the classic advice like never invest more than 5% into any one company. And split your funds into equity and bonds. I can't go wrong with this plan: **1. US Banking 10%:** Two rock-solid titans with Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual. **2. Insurance 5%:** AIG is the largest insurance in the world! Zero risk. **3. European banks are reputedly even safer so 5%:** Anglo Irish Bank is my bet. **4. Industrial 5%:** GM because you can't go wrong with American classics. **5. Retail 5%:** Circuit City because of all this computer building boom and stuff. **6. Transport 5%:** Frontier Airlines. These low-cost airlines are just amazing cash cows! **7. Tech and energy 10%:** Solyndra & Joost. I know these amazing guys with really promising startups so decided to put take a stake in their companies. These Joker-cards are probably the ones that will turns us into multi-millionaires while the other assets grind more slowly. **8. Real estate 15%:** Got us a fabulous new house in Florida! 15% of all our funds in downpayment and then the mortgage is quite large. But hey, as they say, real estate always goes up long-term! You've seen these guys getting rich with property in the recent years, right!? **9. Fixed-interest 40%:** Following the classic 60/40 advice I'm putting 40% into Greek governmental bonds! We went to Greece once at it was such a nice experience! Germany was such a drag in comparison, so I'm not giving my money to those lederhosen idiots! I'm like, this is all buy-and-hold so I'm even going to peek at the balance for years, just like these weirdo Bogleheads say (who knows, maybe they're onto something!). So yeah, all the family's money is now in there, although wifey doesn't know anything about it yet. She'll be so happy once I'll tell her some years later, how rich and stable we all are. Probably tell when when the kids hit high school in 2012, and we can start planning their fabulous time in elite colleges!

Jesta914630114

With 87% GM, I expect my dividends to rise. Lol

Phiziqe

ok ive decided to halp this fella lose monie on his pre planned earnings play, nothing burger companies report for awhile except C on oct 13 before open ASML on oct 14 before open TSM oct 15 before open GM and GE on oct 20 before open NFLX on oct 20 after close IBM on oct 21 after close the big deal starts the week of oct 26, TSLA, AMZN, AAPL and all, till then nobody cares

Prudent-Corgi3793

You were probably thinking of revenues. They kept their revenues growing slightly before it declined last year. The main difference was in late 2022, they had very enviable operating margins (~16%) for an auto company, compared to the likes of GM (~6% operating) and F (~5% operating). This year, their margins are in line with the rest of the auto sector. In fact, TSLA's (4.6%) operating margins are worse than GM's (7.7% operating) and F's (6.8% operating) now.

augustaye

2021-2024 was when the internal and federal investigation was launched in to someone stealing large amounts of expensive shoes: limited releases, prototypes, and unreleased designs. besides Ann Herbert nike VP and GM of north america letting her son steal and buy shoes (yeezys with his mom's corporate CC) and resell them under the moniker West Side Streetwear. 11 others were arrested for abetting, grand larceny; by using fake UPS tags attached to a shipment (the logistics floor manager was in on it). from what i remember, the reseller Coolkicks was taken down with as the owner was colluding with said floor manager

vladedivac12

Tesla is not? GM is not?

drkgla

Not to mention Ford and GM had the same subsidies Tesla did and didn’t make much out of it because their main priorities are selling gas F150s and Silverados which to your point are what Americans really want.

drkgla

https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/tesla-leads-euro-ncap-safety-rankings-in-two-vehicle-segments/ It’s genuinely a safe car. Ironically these people would say go buy car from Ford or a GM who made death traps for decades and now prioritize hulking pick up trucks as their safety benchmark.

smok1naces

What r u investing in GM? This is r-tarded.

Quick1711

You know the saddest part of this? The fucking government will step in (on our behalf, of course) and bail them out because everything in this country has turned into a *”legacy company” and can’t fail in the eyes of this administration.* *Same shit as BYD not being sold here. Don’t wanna put GM or Ford in a position to where they have to innovate and build an affordable EV.*

Flashy_Chocolate3984

I did that with GM and lost it all

Overall_Hunt7211

LAC. US based Lithium mine starting up in late 27 early 28. Good growth for the next 10 years on it. The mine is backed by DOE and GM.

scramjetmode

MU just printed $54.2B revenue at 87% GM, guided $61.5B next quarter, says Q1 is the margin floor, supply stays tight through 2028, and most 2027 HBM is already locked at higher prices. Market calls peak cycle; I call $MU still wildly underpriced. See you at 2,000. Don’t be a panican.

Separate_Baker7280

Where did you get 87% GM?

RoutineRevolution544

This is the first quarter with Thornhill and an additional better line. Every quarter until now was about the single line, managing cash burn and proving the concept. If they had been churning out batteries at a higher rate and lower margins they would have caused more dilution. Cash burn can reduce significantly in these upcoming quarters, and they have the cash to get to GM profitability if they meet their target.

Severe-Weekend-6664

solid writeup, the Line 2 ramp masking the GM improvement in Q2 is the part most people sleeping on this are missing. the real risk isn't the thesis, it's getting chopped up on the Line 1 move to Thornhill in Q4 if Line 2 stutters at higher utilizations before then. what's your exit plan if the preliminaries don't drop within that 9-15 day window this time?

Clackamas_river

The move is in the guide. Street has $31.50 on a $31 guide, so a $32–$33 print is a shrug. The real swing is whether Mehrotra guides $35-plus with mid-80s gross margin held as the run-rate, and whether he previews the December 9 buyback unlock. listen for: Q1 guide versus the $35–$37 whisper, mid-80s GM as the run-rate, and buybacks after December 9. If those land, the $1,032 low is dead and the stock runs to $1,150–$1,200 by Friday.

goebela3

Ya they did the same thing in 2008 with GM, it’s a bipartisan strategy until orange man bad

Catsoverall

"right but Tesla is already valued as much as Ford, Toyota, and GM combined". Heard it all before

jark87

100% agree. But the data is pretty overwhelming and at some point common sense takes over. It's like saying a GM has no control over the results of the team. What is definitive is that supply side economics, which is primarily the GOP economic position, has never produced the promised widespread economic boost. Profit and shareholder value? Yes, but not in any other form.

jl2l

GM had 185B in revenue last year and has a market cap of 85 Billion. Make it make sense.

Artmasterx

I am curious what they are depreciating that yields $60M+ in D&A (slide 29). Are they depreciating a bunch of computing equipment? I wish they would put in a cash flow or more complete P&L. They have a net loss of $33M for 2025 but somehow get to a +$55M in adjusted EBITDA. What are they spending so much money on to go from $246M in revenue and 80% gross margin that yields a $33M net loss in 2025? Is this simply a highly labor-intensive consulting type business where GM doesn't really mean much in how they are reporting it?

MantaMunta

VW is going down. About 100k jobs expected to be axed in the next years, they are closing multiple factories in Germany. Already 65% down from 5 years ago. They fired the man who wanted to pull VW into the future 5 years ago. They fired Herbert because "he was going to fast". It's only a value play if you mean negative value. The company is royally fucked. I don't see a future for it unless they become a shell sales company for the Chinese like GM just signed a contract for.

tresslessaccount

Boeing, Ford, GM, Pratt and Whitney, GE, etc. (old fucking companies that employ hundreds of thousands of people) serve a couple primary purposes: Employ american people, get them healthcare and dental coverage. They just happen to also make planes, cars, engines, etc.

MantaMunta

GM is subsidised at like 3x Tesla and is still taken over by china

idkuhhhhhhh5

THANK YOU MR PRESIDENT FOR BRINGING BACK SUCH GREAT INDUSTRIES ESPECIALLY GM [THEY WOULD NEVER COST THE GOVERNMENT MONEY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization) NOR WOULD [STELLANTIS](https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/stellantis) OR EVEN [FORD](https://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/) Don’t get me wrong here, I wouldn’t consider myself to be a commie, but the fact that “Capitalism breeds innovation” is widely believed, I’m not exactly sure how the most capitalist president since Reagan openly pushing us from one of the only automotive fields *actually doing any innovation right now* is compatible with reality.

madridddddd

Ahhh yes forcing us into buying Ford GM n Stellantis... Most reliable car makers in the world 😂

itsalwayscalls

GM forecasts $14b to $16b profits. Their market cap is $70b.

ExternalityXV

I recently had a meeting with the GM of the warehouse I work in, we were discussing our health savings plans and got on the topic of HSA. We both have one and he mentioned that his financial advisor recommended he invest his unused HSA money and how he doubled his money from it. He ended up getting pulled into another meeting so I didn't get to probe him very much on it. Just wanted to pick everyone's brain on investing your unused HSA money and whether that would be super beneficial for a smaller account. Obviously the GM of our facility is going to have much more in his account than me, I think I have less than $1k. And what would be a good investment to put it into?

music_is_gud

GM, Moe bb 😚

AlfredEensteen

What is the actual problem with CNG? I worked briefly for a company that was doing conversions to new GM trucks (pickups and medium duty) back when CNG was being pushed heavily as transport fuel (early 2010's). I know there was an issue with the pressure regulators where they would freeze up when you accelerated after driving on the interstate for a while (i.e., an hour at 70 mph then accelerate to pass, or come to a steep grade and the cruise control opens the throttle) which would be a major issue for tractor-trailers, but buses and UPS trucks and garbage trucks work fine around town with the varying throttle position. This was when pressure was 3500, before the high pressure began (5000? or 5500?, may be higher now). GM made factory CNG trucks briefly and I was thinking about getting one. I got to a point where I wasn't driving 35-40k miles a year any longer and I stopped paying attention.

itsalwayscalls

GM trading at 5.75 forward is stupid. They even raised guidance for Q3 after Q2. I get the whole America bad, no hybrid vehicles point, but it is wildly underpriced. They have SUVs that are selling more YoY and V8s in their trucks vs others. They actually have decent vehicles.

EmbarrassedPart1256

ALL HAIL u/johnnyshots22 !!! 

geebzor

This took out our exchange server back a few decades ago. The GM opened an email cause he thought they were pics of Anna. Our exchange server emailed the entire global address book with a copy of the virus. I was the LAN administrator back then. I walked into the server room and unplugged the Ethernet cable.

Spac55

$TSLA TSLA. 1.5 Trillion car company When GM, F, just 50 Billion market cap Interest rate same for all, buying car not easy for consumers, look $MCD how consumers suffering

Early_Paramedic_1862

Hello GM? Will you give me $60,000 in GM shares if I buy a $60,000 Chevy Silverado?

EntertainerDowntown3

I mean it being valued at higher than GM early on when it had zero sales should have been an eye opener for you.

DuckTalesOohOoh

The GM merger?

itsalwayscalls

GM is trading at a forward PE of 6. I bought calls the day it dropped 5%. They have V8s and SUVs that are affordable. Short F.

YugModnarEmosTsuj

You're joking, right? I had a '97 Camry that ran with the motor mounts broken for over a year, before we were finally able to pull the engine and extract a stuck bolt. (That bolt went to one motor mount, without it, they were eventually break one at a time.) I was able to replace the motor mounts, the entire exhaust, timing chain and water pump, all in a driveway. I drove it to work one day and it threw a rod through the crankcase on the way there. I left it, came back an hour later, started back up, drove it the last bit to work, and we pulled it apart to find where it was broken. After some fussing with it, I drove it home, including 3 miles on the highway at 65mph, again, missing an entire piston and having a hole in the side of the engine. Meanwhile, Ford built a dual clutch system that acted like a wet clutch, but was actually a dry clutch, just to cut costs, and then kept dropping these transmissions back into cars over and over despite knowing they were an issue and doing nothing to fix it. Now they (And GM) are trying to argue that since they designed their engines to use proprietary software, that means end users and third parties shouldn't be allowed to work on them at all.

MainlineX

Yea, back in the day the same platform served several models so a lot of parts are interchangeable across a lot of different cars. GM A body and G body, Crystler A body and B body had millions and millions of cars made with parts that fit across their perspective platforms for years and years.

joebraga2

That's basically the tension I was trying to point out. If Detroit maintains higher margins and market share because a major group of competitors is excluded, that's certainly beneficial to Detroit in the short term. But it doesn't automatically tell us whether Detroit has actually become more competitive. Those are different things. A company can be very successful inside a protected domestic market while simultaneously losing competitiveness in markets where it has to face the full field of competitors. That's why I keep looking at Latin America. GM, Ford and Stellantis don't get to pretend BYD, Geely, GWM, SAIC and others don't exist here. They have to compete with them for actual customers. So I wouldn't necessarily use “parasitic” as an economic description, because trade protection can have legitimate industrial-policy and national-security objectives too. The interesting question for investors is where the cost of that protection ends up and what Detroit does with the time it buys. If protection gives US manufacturers time to reduce costs, improve batteries, develop better affordable EVs and become internationally competitive, that's one outcome. If it mainly allows them to preserve domestic prices and margins while their foreign competitors keep improving elsewhere, that's a very different outcome. And that's exactly the distinction I was trying to make in the original post.

joebraga2

I think you're mixing up three different things: profitability, consolidation and government support. China absolutely has too many EV manufacturers, and I fully expect consolidation. Some companies will fail, some will merge and some brands will disappear. But that doesn't mean the Chinese automotive industry disappears with them. The important question isn't whether every Chinese EV startup survives. It's what happens to the companies that do survive. That's also why “Xi is taking away the subsidies, so bankruptcies are coming” is too simplistic. China has been reducing and restructuring EV support rather than simply switching it off. The industry is being pushed toward a more mature phase where weaker manufacturers are increasingly exposed to competition. And look at the companies we're actually talking about. BYD, Geely and SAIC aren't interchangeable with tiny EV startups. SAIC is an especially interesting example because it already has a deep industrial relationship with GM. This matters a lot in Latin America. For decades, Chevrolet's Brazilian and Latin American identity was heavily influenced by Opel engineering. We had generations of cars with European GM roots: Opala/Rekord, Chevette/Kadett, Corsa, Astra, Vectra, Omega, Meriva, Zafira and others. That era gradually disappeared as GM reorganized its global operations during the 2010s. But what replaced it is fascinating: Chinese engineering and GM's Chinese joint ventures became increasingly relevant to GM's global and emerging-market product development. The current-generation Chevrolet Onix, for example, was the first model based on GM's GEM architecture, developed through GM's global engineering structure with substantial participation from its Chinese operations and SAIC-GM/PATAC. And now GM is looking even further toward its Chinese partnerships for South America, including cooperation with SAIC-GM-Wuling on future products. Think about what that means for the original argument. Americans tend to imagine this as a simple competition between “Detroit” and “Chinese automakers.” But the global automotive industry doesn't work that neatly anymore. Chinese engineering can end up inside a Chevrolet. A Western manufacturer can use a Chinese-developed platform or product outside China. A Chinese company can supply technology to the same Western manufacturers that are politically protected from direct Chinese competition in the US. So yes, many Chinese EV brands probably won't survive the consolidation. That's almost beside the point. If ten weak manufacturers disappear but BYD, Geely, SAIC and several other survivors emerge larger, technologically stronger and more internationally experienced, Detroit still has to compete against the resulting industry everywhere outside the protected US market. Latin America is already showing how complicated this becomes. Chevrolet spent decades adapting European Opel engineering to this region. Now Chinese partnerships can play part of the role that European engineering once played in its product strategy. That's the irony: Americans may eventually encounter Chinese automotive engineering without ever buying a Chinese-branded car. Which brings me back to the question in my original post. Excluding Chinese-branded vehicles from the US doesn't stop Chinese manufacturers from developing technology, gaining scale or competing with American manufacturers elsewhere. The investment question isn't whether every Chinese EV startup survives. It's whether the Chinese companies that survive this brutal consolidation become stronger global competitors — and whether insulating Detroit from that same competitive pressure at home leaves it better or worse prepared to face them abroad.

Independent-Use-228

GM be offering a 4.9% APR for the new Sierra. How kind of you $GM to ram me without any lube.

soggy_mattress

I was, yes, but they still aren't exact numbers. In the US, it's something like 8.5x more than the next best-selling manufacturer (GM). Globally, it's \~6.1x the next manufacturer (VW group). My point stands: Tesla, despite horrible political headwind and a divisive CEO, sells multiples over the next best EV manufacturers.

SkyMarshal

Detroit can't become competitive as long as China keeps the Yuan artificially low, and maybe not even then if wages in China remain substantially lower than in the US. The restriction is about preventing further loss of US jobs and bankruptcy of GM/Ford/Chrysler. The massive outsourcing wave of the 2000s and 2010s created immense social instability, hatred and distrust of both US political parties, and the (correct) belief they've both been captured by Wall St and "globalists" who don't care about the US only their own profit margins. It's why America voted in Trump and MAGA took over the GOP, and Socialists are on the verge of taking over the Dems.

felixfortunate

GM, Ford and Stellantis sold over 6.3 million vehicles in the US last year. That's roughly 38% of every new vehicle sold in America. People love shitting on American manufacturers online, but the actual consumer behavior tells a very different story. Americans are still buying millions of GM, Ford, Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Chrysler vehicles every year. For comparison, the entire US BEV market was only about 1.3 million vehicles last year. So I'm not sure I buy the argument that exposing Detroit to heavily subsidized Chinese manufacturers and potentially sacrificing domestic volume is somehow automatically going to make them stronger. There's a massive domestic industry here worth protecting. The problem isn't protection. The problem is what Detroit does with it. If tariffs give them time to reduce costs, improve batteries/software and strengthen the domestic supply chain, great. If they spend ten years selling $70k trucks behind a tariff wall while BYD gets better everywhere else, then yeah, we've got a problem.

debrutsideno

Oh the giant AI response. Not my favorite.. On the Ford point, in 2024 the Ford CEO Jim Farley imported a Xiaomi SU7 and drove it for 6 months. At the end he said he didn’t want to give it up. The Xiaomi SU7 starts at around $32,000 USD and if it were available in the USA Tesla, Ford, Chevy, GM and the rest would have a tough time competing at that price. The closest comparison to a standard Xiaomi SU7 is the Tesla model 3. Which starts around $37,000 and has a smaller battery, less power and much worse interior. If I had the option I would probably buy something like the BYD Seal 08. Around $30k usd.

Aggravating_Storm835

I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.

Aggravating_Storm835

I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.

Aggravating_Storm835

I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.

Aggravating_Storm835

I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.

Aggravating_Storm835

I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.

Storm_Chaser06

Let the Chinese cars in, and Ford, GM and Stellantis might finally think about spending money and making good cars.

BlueCowboy3758

GM sales are down in China as of late and Chevy has completely exited their market this year. It's really just Buick carrying them there, along with some Cadillac sales.

AnotherRandomGuy34

I mean it's not like they don't, but for Ford and GM majority of their revenue and profits are still US based. For Stellantis, China is already started to creep in their European market, so not long until they start feeling the brunt. But in general for these three companies ex-North American markets are looking bleak in near and long future.

aegee14

You think Tesla sells well and GM doesn’t in China? Lol.

Significant_Eye_5130

Ford and GM don’t have international markets? Yes they do. In fact Ford sells Chinese produced cars in the US right now.

joebraga2

I think a lot of people are missing the broader point here. This isn't simply “China cheats, therefore Chinese cars are cheap.” Yes, China has heavily supported its auto and battery industries. But industrial policy isn't uniquely Chinese. The US has protected and subsidized its own auto industry too, including the interventions during the 2008–09 crisis and, much more recently, huge incentives for EV and battery manufacturing. The bigger question is what automakers did with that protection and investment. Detroit spent years concentrating on high-margin pickups and large SUVs while affordable cars gradually disappeared from their lineups. Then EVs arrived and many manufacturers tried to repeat essentially the same strategy: large, expensive vehicles with large batteries and high margins. That left a huge opening at the affordable end of the market. Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers invested aggressively in batteries, electric platforms, vertical integration, manufacturing scale and smaller EVs. You don't have to agree with Chinese industrial policy to recognize that this created real technological and manufacturing capabilities. Reducing all of that to “cheating” doesn't explain the product gap. The quality argument is also becoming increasingly difficult to make as a blanket statement. GM itself has spent decades working with SAIC in China, and SAIC-GM-Wuling has become a major part of GM's Chinese operations. Chinese manufacturers aren't simply producing primitive cheap cars anymore. Brazil is particularly interesting because we can actually watch this competition happening in an open market. BYD's Dolphin Mini and Dolphin compete directly against cars from Chevrolet, Fiat, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Toyota and others. Consumers aren't being forced to buy them. They're comparing purchase price, equipment, performance, warranty and operating costs. And now the traditional manufacturers themselves are reacting. GM is bringing products developed through its Chinese partnerships, Stellantis is using Leapmotor technology and products, and other legacy manufacturers are developing cheaper EVs because they know this segment cannot simply be abandoned. So tariffs can keep Chinese-built EVs out of the US market, but they don't solve the underlying product problem. If Detroit wants to remain competitive globally, eventually it has to build affordable vehicles that people actually want to buy at competitive prices. You can criticize Chinese subsidies without pretending that every competitive advantage Chinese manufacturers have today comes from “cheating.” Those are two very different arguments.

joebraga2

That's actually very close to what makes me ask this question in the first place. I'm from Brazil, and we're seeing another version of this experiment here. Chinese automakers are competing directly with the established brands, and they're putting a lot of pressure on the market through price, equipment and electrification. But here's the part I find interesting: keeping those companies out of the US doesn't protect Detroit from that competition everywhere else. GM, Ford and Stellantis have been trying to compete in Latin America for decades. Ford even stopped manufacturing vehicles in Brazil in 2021, long before the current wave of Chinese EV competition here. So the difficulties of American automakers in this region can't simply be blamed on Chinese companies. Now they have another problem: BYD, GWM and other Chinese manufacturers are expanding in markets where American, European, Japanese and Korean brands already compete. That's why I'm not convinced that keeping Chinese cars out necessarily makes Detroit stronger in the long run. It may protect the extremely profitable US market, but GM, Ford and Stellantis still have to face those manufacturers in Mexico, Brazil and the rest of the world. And your Mexico example is especially interesting for that reason. If American automakers increasingly depend on protected or particularly profitable segments at home while losing ground in competitive segments abroad, protection may preserve their US business without actually solving the underlying competitiveness problem. That's the distinction I'm trying to make: keeping Detroit profitable in America and making Detroit globally competitive aren't necessarily the same thing.

IllStickToTheShadows

Yes. Where my family is from in Mexico the vast majority of people switched to Chinese cars in general because they are cheaper. GM, Ford, and Stellantis are basically extinct now except for their trucks used by the government or businesses. If you introduce Chinese cars in the US, you’d cause Detroit to go bankrupt…again

Alarmed_Sky3253

Out of all companies GM is by far the worst at any innovations and any logical decisions.

Pimpwerx

Ford and GM are just going to become the new Lada and Aurus Motors. What? You haven't heard of these prestigious Soviet car brands? Well then, that's your loss. In Soviet Russia, car drives you!

joebraga2

That's a much more reasonable concern than simply saying “Chinese car = spy device.” Connected vehicles absolutely create privacy and national-security questions. Cameras, GPS, cellular connectivity, driver-assistance systems and other sensors can generate enormous amounts of data, and I understand why the US would want strict rules governing where that data goes and who can remotely access the vehicle. But I don't think this is inherently a Chinese-car problem. It's a connected-car problem. The FTC has already taken action against GM and OnStar over allegations involving the collection and sale of precise geolocation and driving-behavior data from millions of American vehicles. So American cars can create serious data-privacy problems too. The important distinction, in my view, is between regulating the data and simply banning the product because of its nationality. If a Chinese automaker wants to sell cars in a country, require local data storage where appropriate, cybersecurity audits, restrictions on remote access, transparency about what the cameras and sensors collect, and compliance with that country's privacy laws. If a particular manufacturer can't comply with those requirements, then that's a concrete security problem. But “this car has cameras and LiDAR, therefore Beijing is mapping everything within 100 feet of it” requires evidence of what is actually being collected, transmitted and accessed. Otherwise we'd have to ask the same privacy questions about every highly connected vehicle on the road, regardless of whether the badge says BYD, GM, Ford, Tesla or something else.

joebraga2

That's a much more reasonable concern than simply saying “Chinese car = spy device.” Connected vehicles absolutely create privacy and national-security questions. Cameras, GPS, cellular connectivity, driver-assistance systems and other sensors can generate enormous amounts of data, and I understand why the US would want strict rules governing where that data goes and who can remotely access the vehicle. But I don't think this is inherently a Chinese-car problem. It's a connected-car problem. The FTC has already taken action against GM and OnStar over allegations involving the collection and sale of precise geolocation and driving-behavior data from millions of American vehicles. So American cars can create serious data-privacy problems too. The important distinction, in my view, is between regulating the data and simply banning the product because of its nationality. If a Chinese automaker wants to sell cars in a country, require local data storage where appropriate, cybersecurity audits, restrictions on remote access, transparency about what the cameras and sensors collect, and compliance with that country's privacy laws. If a particular manufacturer can't comply with those requirements, then that's a concrete security problem. But “this car has cameras and LiDAR, therefore Beijing is mapping everything within 100 feet of it” requires evidence of what is actually being collected, transmitted and accessed. Otherwise we'd have to ask the same privacy questions about every highly connected vehicle on the road, regardless of whether the badge says BYD, GM, Ford, Tesla or something else.

joebraga2

That's actually the historical comparison I had in mind when I wrote the post. Japanese competition exposed a real weakness in Detroit's product strategy, especially when American consumers suddenly cared much more about fuel economy and smaller cars. Detroit eventually improved enormously in quality, but today the Big Three have largely retreated from several mainstream passenger-car segments where Toyota and Honda remained strong. What makes the Chinese situation interesting to me is that the competitive pressure doesn't disappear just because those cars are kept out of the US. BYD, Geely and others can continue competing against GM, Ford and Stellantis in Brazil, Europe, Southeast Asia and other markets. So Detroit could remain very profitable at home selling trucks and large SUVs while simultaneously losing competitiveness elsewhere in smaller EVs, affordable EVs and PHEVs. That's the part that makes me wonder whether protection is buying Detroit time to catch up, or simply delaying the moment when it has to respond to the same kind of competitive pressure that Japanese manufacturers created decades ago.

alexrobinson

Protectionism is a useful tool for infant industries that has been used since the industrial revolution to protect domestic production. The problem is GM, Ford, Chevy and the like are not infant industries, they don't give a shit about the US economy and it's national security beyond their own share prices and profit margins.  As a result of this, any US protectionism is used purely to stifle competition, not to actually innovate or gain a foothold in new markets like it has in China. This is what happens when protectionism is done to prop up failing businesses. You get companies that are unable to innovate because resting on their laurels has become their bread and butter instead of competing.  

VeryStableGenius

The domestic US auto industry is a pickup truck industry that makes cars as a money-losing hobby, thanks to mix of chicken tax (banning imported trucks) and the weird math of the CAFE standards (that makes cheap light pickups technically unfeasible), and the fact that everybody else can make cheaper, better cars. And the fact that rednecks love their F-150s and Dodge Rams, and will into debt to buy them. Pickups are 50% of GM's profits, and 80% of Ford's. Large SUVs are 45% of GM's profits, and 15% of Ford's. Cars are under 5% of each brand's profits. Basically, Ford's and GM's profits already sit in a protected bubble. An influx of Chinese imported cars, assuming the truck/car balance doesn't shift, would seem to hurt the companies that actually sell cars: Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Tesla, BMW, VVW, Nissan. The overlap I see with China's EVs is Ford's SUV division (45% of profits). Ford and GM could innovate more in the mini-pickup category, where CAFE would no longer apply (small trucks would be allowed), but which are still protected by chicken tax.

blindnlearning2see

As an American, I'd rather buy a cheap Chinese EV than a car/SUV, from GM or Ford. There's like 6 actual car models still available for sale in the US - it's all SUVs, trucks, and crossovers. There's like 2 minivan models left. The US vehicle market is so cringe.

RobotChrist

lmao gotta love this dumb takes that are completely ignorant on a subject and end with "you're uneducated on the subject" hahaha First and foremost, I don't have time to correct all the propaganda that you're repeating (everything that you have said is factually wrong), but I'm just going to tell you what's actually happening in the real world: All the western car companies work in China, all of them, all of them are designing, building, exporting and selling in China, even for a couple of them China is their biggest and most important market, for most of them all of their progress in electrification comes from their China's ventures and developments All of these western car makers have Chinese models, they're usually cheaper and more technologically advanced, they sell these cars not only in China, but all over the world, and lately they have been so good that they're the best sellers in the markets they're sold, and not only that, GM is starting to build their Chinese models now outside of China, starting this year they'll build the Aveo and the Groove in Mexico, because they're just better than their US models, and their best sellers by much I could list every western company and how they're growing thanks to their partnerships and business in China, Toyota, VW, Honda, Nissan, Ford, Tesla, you name it. All the propaganda you're parroting is designed to make it seem like China is destroying western car makers, when the reality is quite the opposite, most of them are able to move forward thanks to their Chinese links, but obviously most of them are dragged by their stupid constraints, overpaid executives, bloated portfolios, inefficient logistics, chronic lack of innovation and a long ass etcetera

spendanightinthebox

I think that argument is hugely overblown. The lithium in batteries can be recovered to 90-95% through new recycling practices. Lithium is abundant in solid form in the ground and in liquid form from wells in California, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The oil companies are clinging to disinformation while the walls crumble around them. GM and Ford will lose their global markets and be left with only the USA. The rest of the world zooms past us. Pure electric vehicles are far more efficient and have about 70% fewer moving parts, meaning low maintenance.

joebraga2

Esse comentário do benwinner está formulando o argumento de predatory pricing: vender abaixo do custo para eliminar concorrentes e depois aumentar preços. É uma hipótese possível em teoria, mas ele está apresentando como certeza que seria isso que BYD/Geely fariam nos EUA. Aí dá para responder usando justamente seu teste de localização, sem negar que subsídios ou preços agressivos possam existir. Eu responderia assim, pronto para copiar: That's a legitimate risk to consider, but that's also why I keep proposing local production rather than unrestricted imports. Require BYD or any other Chinese automaker entering the US to build locally, employ American workers, comply with US labor, safety and environmental rules, and make its corporate structure and subsidies subject to the applicable US trade and competition rules. Then the “they're only cheap because China subsidizes exports and pays Chinese wages” hypothesis becomes much easier to test. Brazil is already giving us an imperfect version of that experiment. Chinese companies that arrived here 15+ years ago didn't automatically succeed. Chery struggled badly in its early years but stayed, localized and eventually partnered with CAOA. JAC initially had a much stronger launch, but its passenger-car operation later shrank dramatically. Now BYD, GWM, Chery and Changan are localizing manufacturing in Brazil and employing Brazilian workers, while competing against GM, VW, Stellantis, Toyota, Hyundai and others that also manufacture here. If the business model really depends on permanently selling cars below cost, localization won't magically make that sustainable. But if Chinese manufacturers can eventually make money producing locally while still offering competitive prices, then we have to consider another explanation: maybe part of the advantage actually comes from manufacturing efficiency, batteries, vertical integration, platforms, procurement and scale. That's exactly what I want to find out. I don't want American workers flipping burgers either. I want to know which manufacturing system can employ them while producing globally competitive cars.

joebraga2

That's another reason I think the competition question matters. The issue isn't simply whether Detroit survives. It's also what American consumers are getting for their money. And North American manufacturing already gives us a way to have competition without simply importing everything from China. GM, Nissan and other manufacturers already use highly integrated US-Mexico supply chains. So if the concern is American manufacturing, require Chinese automakers to localize production in North America and meet the same labor, safety and regulatory requirements. Then see what happens to prices. If their cost advantage disappears, we learned something important. If it doesn't, then American manufacturers have a much more fundamental cost and product-positioning question to answer.