GM

hadizadam

GM 💜💜

hadizadam

GM 💜💜

Smurf_Crime_Scene

Military stocks such as Ford & GM

thenorthernwhiteboy

Sears, Enron, GM and Lehman All very different sure but there is always the possibility. If it were to fail I’d assume there would be a government bail out just like GM

FINRAdude766

Wtf? There's a whole training process lil bro. No cap, I had to watch like 4 hours of videos on the computer in the breakroom before i put on the grey hat (employees at Burger king wear black, management wears grey).  Next step, GM 💯

hadizadam

GM 🤍🤍😚

Unfair_Adeptness_838

IBM now has lower p/e than GM.

hadizadam

GM 💜💜

AtomicSymphonic_2nd

In terms of American trucks, GM’s shit is very much the most dependable you can get. Ford has a bunch of “built tough” marketing and has a very checkered past for reliability. Stellantis/Chrysler is equivalent to Land Rover in terms of reliability, which is abysmal. lol

SporksInjected

The only OEMs that you listed are GM, Mercedes, and Honda. Mercedes discontinued their level 3 PILOT system, Honda has discontinued electric cars altogether, and I have a very hard time believing GM doesn’t require you to be on the highway, in specific areas, at a specific speed, etc. none of those options allow me to get in my car in my driveway and have it drive me to the grocery store and back.

userhwon

Waymo (Alphabet), Cruise (GM), Zoox (Amazon), and Apollo Go (Baidu) are all operating robotaxi services at FSD level 4 (fully unattended within a defined area). Mercedes Benz and Honda have FSD level 3 (attended with eyes off the road in limited situations). Tesla is at FSD level 2 (attended with eyes on the road), along with a bunch of other companies. Their trials of driverless taxis in Texas are allowed only because Texas doesn't care about FSD levels or safety.

FrostyFire

Did you just claim GM did $190 Billion in revenue in a single quarter? You truly do belong on this sub.

CALMER_THAN_YOU_

The only people who buy GM are the poors who couldn't afford anything better.

TeamDisrespect

Yo son.. I’m gonna tell em solar is for pussies and GM cars are gay AF while F150s are yuge. Position yourself accordingly

Avbjj

GM trucks are great. And they sell a shit load of them.

CALMER_THAN_YOU_

who tf wants a GM car unless its your only option basically

Avbjj

Tesla has a 1.45T market value on 90 billion in their last quarter. GM has a 95B market value on 190 billion in their last quarter. 💀

Turtlesaur

GM E bros

Spatula_of_Justice1

Not sure where I'm crying and blaming. If you cannot support this debate with facts then punch out. lil bro....let's dig in on the auto bailout. GM for instance. $50 billion of taxpayer money was spent to prop up a dying company, we lost 11.2 billion that was not repaid. Who won? Does GM produce better or cheaper cars? No? Who won? UAW chiefs, lobbyists, and large, rich shareholders who would have been hurt if the shares went to zero. Ford took no gov money. "Yes, but saved jobs!". No. Demand for cars does not change depending on players on the board; purchases and jobs would have flowed to other manufacturers in sghort time Still waiting to hear where in the US Constitution bailouts are enshrined. No bailouts....ever.

GodDamnMongolian

Was it a bailout or a government backed loan are different. Hate GM all you want but this was a banking crisis and not an automaker caused crisis. The banks didn't have the liquidity to help automakers with the crisis caused by lack of banking regulations, so the government stepped in. This wasn't a crisis caused by automakers, it was a banking crisis. The banks should have failed

deten

I dont think that changes it. The goal of the bailout wasnt to make interest it was to keep GM alive. GM should have died from its failures.

GodDamnMongolian

The automotive bailouts were actually more like loans. America made money on the interests that GM and other groups when they paid back the loans. It wasn't just a cash handout so that specific bailout shouldn't bother you as much as the short sighted company culture and cost cutting at all costs should

Gloomy-Insurance-739

Not to mention that we the taxpayers lost millions bailing out GM and that they have not paid us back yet.

BoatAlternative5103

Bailing out American auto was a big mistake. GM should have died and been replaced by car companies that make cars that actually run.

Correct_Exchange9070

Similar in that regard, yes, but they weren’t running around just saving any ol company. It was very controversial and if they would have let a company like GM fail, the fallout could have possibly been worse than the Great Depression. Remember, those presidential administrations actually had smart people working in them and weren’t just full of grifters making guesses.

stillay

The thing that always got me about GM is their name is wrong. They don't make motors, the make engines. Small distinction but one a group of engineers making cars should have noticed

The-Phantom-Blot

Yeah, I know about stock ownership, and yeah I own \*some\* stocks ... but I think you know that most Americans derive the vast majority of their income from labor. Inflating assets faster than wage growth benefits the rich and hurts the poor. About your example, I looked it up for giggles ... UAW pension fund has $29.3B of GM-related assets, which is spread across 400k active and 580k retired members. So that's $30k per member. Mary Barra holds about $37M in GM stock now, and just sold about $21M, so $58M at a minimum until just recently. So it would take the wealth of just 505 Mary Barras to match the wealth of nearly 1 million UAW workers. Of course, there are many current and retired GM executives with plenty of stock in their own right. Retired UAW employees may care more about stock price than worker wages, but that's surely not the situation for many or most active UAW employees. These are working families that, when they lose $1 of income, they spend $1 less in the economy. Very different from executives with millions stacked on millions, whose lifetime basic needs and even luxuries have been in the bank for years. All I'm saying is, we see choice after choice in favor of asset growth, while workers get squeezed and social benefits get cut. It's making society worse. And it doesn't have to be like that.

Walternotwalter

Any devaluation benefits asset holders. This class warfare shit is childish. You are on a stocks subreddit. Do you own stocks? You would benefit. Would somebody who owns more benefit more? Of course. The things that retain value as currency loses value are called assets. Ownership shares of a company are an asset. Bernanke called it the "wealth effect." UAW members may not own stock but their pension fund sure as shit does. Does the CEO of GM benefit alot if the share price goes up? Sure she does. Do you think she owns more shares than the pension fund? Doubtful.

betarhoalphadelta

Well, if they ramp up production to no longer be in shortage, DRAM/NAND prices will drop. They won't be making 81% GM which is what they guided for this quarter. That's where the "cyclical" nature of this business bites you. Shortages beget booms. Booms beget CapEx. CapEx ends shortages and sometimes begets oversupply. Oversupply begets busts. I say the same thing regarding SNDK. These are stocks you don't marry. They're stocks you maybe date for a year or two but be ready to break it off at any time.

hadizadam

GM 💜💜

JustAnotherRegardd

lol no everyone in management was fucking while all married. I shit you not. It was so bad the GM had his wife come in not once but twice and slap him across the face infront of everyone over it. He was sleeping with the assistant manager

wang4wang

Man, famine is a meme until supply chains actually crack... but tariffs plus Ford/GM/GE Aerospace getting pulled into weapons output isn't exactly bullish either. Market's still acting like none of that repricing matters, which is kinda nuts.

Sryzon

I work for one of them. We're only 12 employees, been in business for 25 years, and do $30m+ a year. We work with everyone from GM, to Rocket Labs, to Quest Diagnostics and Boeing. There's thousands just like us

PandaCasserole

That engine in the GM Colorado UTV thing is a 2.8l diesel. And they SUCK. They no longer are producing that engine and to have a military contract you have to have replacement parts... Idk what they hell they are thinking.

Master_External9526

OSK and GE aerospace are the real reads here, already DoD qualified and capacity constrained. retooling a GM/ford line for munitions isn't spinning up a parts run. it's subscale low-margin work that doesn't move those stocks

realribsnotmcfibs

This. I do quality and automation for what is primarily the automotive industry. But we do military, medical, and food when we are able to get the job. The tiered supplier side is far deeper than a company like GM.

Yankee831

Ford is literally launching a ground up Budget EV with home built batteries. GM sells some of the cheapest EV’s (and the biggest most expensive) on the market. Tesla is the top selling EV company and has one of the cheapest options available.

bigbluesongbird

"BREAKING: Pentagon approaches GM, Ford and other large auto manufacturers to discuss shifting from auto development to weapons and military supply production."

tankmode

I’m sure that PAC-3 Missiles and  F-15Es can be just chugged out on a repurposed Chevy Equinox assembly line.  Modern GM can’t even build a reliable V8 in the last 15 years and thats supposed to be something theyre “good” at. 

Nightdocks

What do you think the Pentagon is tapping GM and Ford for

mrsweettreats

Will Ford and GM making weapons help their stock?

polkpanther

"Oh sorry the bomb didn't explode on impact, that's an extra subscription from GM"

NotMe357

"JUST IN: Pentagon reportedly asks GM & Ford to begin producing weapons, reviving a WWII-era model." WW4 Baby!

SkepticalInvestor21

Great breakdown of the NKLA disaster. I remember watching that Hindenburg report drop in real-time - the "rolling down a hill" detail was so absurd it felt like satire. The red flags were there early if you knew where to look. When they announced the GM partnership, the fundamentals didn't pencil out - massive valuation compared to zero actual deliveries. The way Trevor Milton oversold technology that didn't exist yet should have been enough to stay away. This is exactly why digging into SEC filings matters before buying any hyped stock. The S-1s and 10-Ks tell you whether revenue is real or "announced partnerships" that never convert. Did anyone here actually make money shorting this after the Hindenburg report, or was the borrow rate too insane?

kw114

I don't know if TSLA can go to 10T, but people are wrong to value TSLA as a pure car company. People are wrong for years. Toyota, VW, GM..etc will always a car company, TSLA can be anything Elon wants it to be. That bring excitement and potential.

EscapeHistorical178

GM what are bers buying? ROPE?

RolledForCredit

CNBC could stand to revamp their entire team. Same goes for the Fast Money crew. They’re probably talking about GM or Nike right now. 

hadizadam

GM 💜💜😚💜

brute-forced

GM Gandolf

hadizadam

GM 😙😙💜

hadizadam

GM 💜💜

hadizadam

GM 💚💎

ItsyBitsySPYderman

Dude just said we cant let Chinese cars in America because they'd destroy GM and Ford. Jfc. So they DO make better cheaper cars.

tech01x

What lies? Like Nissan, Volvo, Mercedes, and tons of others when it comes to autonomy promises? Or maybe the entire Volkswagen Group went comes to diesel gate? Also Mercedes, Stellantis, and many others were also complicit. Or maybe GM when comes to ignition gate? Or maybe the lies about costs and sales, like Lucid, Rivian, or NIO?

motorcitydevil

I have family members who had hundreds of thousands of dollars in GM stock that just \*poof\* vanished after bankruptcy. I worked in NY during the worst of it, and vividly recall grown men on a ferry heading home from Wall St. sobbing as they realized their employer, Lehman Brothers, had really gone belly up. It was all surreal, and if anything should be taken from the movie, it's that this country didn't do enough to ensure it never happened to the scale it did, ever again.

McKoijion

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/thiel-s-deep-ties-to-epstein-revealed/gm-GM86291554

theGameNWA

I finally feel like life is a game, a fake game when somebody got the GM account and fks it up ty for your attention!

hadizadam

GM 💚

Major_Shlongage

I strongly disagree with your assessment, and I think that you're missing the big picture here. I think it shows a bit of delusion to believe that the wealthiest man in the world is actually "bad at business" and can't deliver on his promises. On the contrary, the reason he got so rich is because he \*has\* delivered on the majority of his promises- at least the large, structural, business-side when it comes to profitability. One important thing to keep in mind is that Elon Musk is not an inventor or worker, he's a highly technical investor. He's a businessman that's willing to take financial risks based on his understanding of a market. How many times have you heard of companies that have employees that come up with innovative ideas, only to have upper management squash them because it would require shifting the company's focus or change the way they do things? The ideas were there, but upper management was too risk-averse. Do you think that engineers at GM never thought of revisiting electric vehicles after the EV1, or rocket scientists at Boeing/Lockheed Martin never thought of developing new, cheaper rockets instead of rehashing the expensive Atlas/Delta rockets? Back in the mid 2000s, Elon claimed that the EV market was going to see a large expansion in the coming years due to the availability of cheap lithium ion batteries used in laptops and e-cigs, and that Tesla was positioned to reap the benefits of this. He was right- Tesla massively grew and became the world's largest EV producer. There were some minor promises such as the rollout of "full self driving" that didn't meet deadlines, but that is minor compared to the overall growth and profitability of the company. Likewise, with SpaceX he made some extremely bold claims about their ability to make reusable rockets and their ability to undercut the established defense contractors that were price gouging the government. It isn't that reusable or re-landable rockets were never made before, it's that they didn't save money and nobody wanted to take the financial risk developing them. Fast forward 20 years and SpaceX's reusable Falcon 9 is absolutely dominant, launching about 80% of mankind's mass into orbit and 2/3rds of NASA launches. As a business, they're in a fantastic position. So what he's doing is not a con or a grift- he's actually succeeding at taking ideas that work and successfully monetizing them.

garden_speech

> whats the difference between GM and CEO of one person operation other than honorific? All I am saying is that it is trivial for a business owner to make sure they qualify for a 401k. At least that’s how it looks to me, but I’m not a CFA or CPA so maybe I’m Wrong

MeThinksYes

whats the difference between GM and CEO of one person operation other than honorific? Real CEO's are typically appointed by a board of directors who vote them in, and then those CEO's are typically also on the board. my mistake on you not saying that other piece my mistake.

garden_speech

> if you are GM, then you would be an employee. That is different than a business owner (who doesn't actively operate the business, outside of a sole proprietor). Okay but it’s literally trivial to make yourself an employee, don’t even need to be a GM, you can just call yourself CEO. > But your statement said that the top 10% owns 90%. No, that was someone else. But to answer your question, the top 10% net worth in the US begins at about 1 million. So it’s a lot of upper middle class families

MeThinksYes

if you are GM, then you would be an employee. That is different than a business owner (who doesn't actively operate the business, outside of a sole proprietor). But your statement said that the top 10% owns 90%. who do you think the top 10% is?

garden_speech

> or an individual small business owner with no employees This doesn't sound correct at all. I am pretty sure a business owner (who is just someone who has an ownership stake in the company) can still have a 401k, if they have a full time job with the company. I own a restaurant -> I hire workers -> I make myself GM -> I pay the max 72k into my retirement account each year You're saying this isn't allowed?

Superb_Item5376

GM

Itry31

A bail in the form of what?? A GM bail out? At 20 dollars it seemed like it was headed the GM direction, but the government restructure the chips act deal and NVDA invested in Intel. This was just before they completely gave up on GPUs and foundry. Hindsight 20 20 and ya boy is up 100k from buying Intel at 20. 

imunfair

You just made me look up that Nikola/GM deal that had the same vibes, apparently it fell apart after it was announced, rightfully so.

hadizadam

GM 💐😚💜

snakeproof

Yes? I didn't say Tesla is the only company, but it would be stupid to use a GM pouch cell pack price to compare against a Tesla round cell pack as proof Tesla packs have gotten cheaper.

hadizadam

GM 🩷🩷

OrangeVoxel

At gas prices the way they are now, dream on GM motors

hadizadam

GM 💙

hadizadam

GM 💚

pdfernhout

u/admin_default Thanks for your informative comment. To support your point of a 30-40% decline as a reasonable base case decline, here is another way to look at it. Feedback appreciated if I got any of this analysis wrong. Ultimately, the value of stock is based on what the company returns to the shareholders, which is dividends, buybacks, and free cash used for growth. The underlying assets of the company (land, commodities, culture, goodwill, patents, trademarks, etc.) support producing income -- so we can ignore their resale value on the assumption that anyone buying those assets directly is just going to get a similar annual returns on them. Let's do a simple steady-state analysis of the S&P 500's value assuming that there will be no growth in the S&P 500 underlying assets -- but also no losses in revenue (so, no changes from the ongoing new energy crisis, market cycles, extended war, decline of the US Dollar, credit crunches, and/or AI decimating the middle class and so on). The S&P 500 is currently valued collectively at [about US$60 Trillion](https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/marketcap). Recent distributions (buybacks, dividends, and free cash) for the S&P 500 are about US$1.6 trillion annually [according to this S&P Global report](https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/global-assets/en/documents/general/US%20market%20dividends%20in%202025.pdf). Divide the annual distributions by the total market cap and that works out to an annual return of about 2.7% on invested capital for the S&P 500 -- or essentially about the current inflation rate. So, in that sense, holding the S&P 500 provides returns of about the same as holding generally-assumed-risk-free US TIPS bonds with zero additional interest beyond inflation. But TIPS currently offer [about 2% return beyond inflation](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/10-year-tips-yield). So, given that, from this narrow steady-state perspective, the S&P 500 is a very bad investment (considering just direct returns) compared to TIPS right now. If the S&P 500 was to drop in market cap by about 50% (to about US$30 trillion), then the return would double to about 5.4%, or somewhat greater than TIPS to reflect a small (about 3%) risk premium for holding stocks. If the S&P 500 were to drop about 75% (to about US$15 Trillion), then the return would be about 10.8%, which would be much larger risk premium of about 8-9%. I'm guessing most long-term investors would be happy enough somewhere in between 3-9% returns beyond inflation, which means the S&P 500 should be valued at somewhere between 25%-50% of what it is now from a steady-state perspective. The energy shock may decrease revenues and thus lower returns more than in the past. We also might expect inflation to go up given an energy shock, meaning the S&P 500 from this limited perspective would return much less than TIPS with no interest if inflation went back to 5% or more. Add decreasing revenues together with high inflation, and that would mean an even lower steady-state valuation for the S&P 500 of perhaps only 20% or so of what it is now (to compete with TIPS, assuming TIPS interest yields don't change in returns, but they might -- they might even go up with high interest rates, driving the S&P 500 down even further comparatively). Of course, in general, the stock market looks forward expecting growth from companies -- and so tends to value companies higher than a steady-state value based on such expectations. And managing those expectations is what so much of investing is all about, and I am purposefully ignoring those growth expectations here (as a bearish case). But, it may not be unreasonable to ignore future expectations for growth if, even short of WWIII, the entire global economy is plunged into a decade of energy shocks and smaller-scale crises as a result of the Iran war. As just one headline from a week ago: "[France confirms oil crisis, says 30-40 percent of Gulf energy infrastructure destroyed](https://www.france24.com/en/france-confirms-oil-crisis-says-30-40-gulf-energy-infrastructure-destroyed)". And Southeast Asia is [entering a profound energy crisis](https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5760763/southeast-asia-is-being-hit-hard-by-irans-cutoff-of-oil-and-gas) which may have huge impacts on manufacturing, tourism, transportation, services, and potentially lead to broad social unrest. So, in a worst case, with an energy shock, and stagflation, and with more infrastructure losses from ongoing war, it's quite possible the S&P 500's market cap could drop much further than half -- maybe even by 90% or more with declining revenues and increasing inflation. Of course, given inflation, it's possible the S&P 500's market cap could be higher than otherwise to track inflation in underlying assets somewhat while also offering no real gains beyond that. Also, an S&P 500 that is still US$60 Trillion in 2036 after, say, ten years of 10% energy-shock-driven inflation (e.g. s[imilar to the US 1970s)](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/1970s-great-inflation.asp) would only be worth less than half of what it is now (factoring in inflation) -- even if it never "dropped" in nominal value. But, there is a also perceived public interest (as a positive externality) in governments assuring businesses continue to function and continue to employ people -- given the right to consume for most people depends on getting a paycheck and might otherwise participate in unrest (leading to bailouts). Those expected bailouts allow companies and investors to take on more risk than otherwise and to expect higher gains (arguably as a moral hazard) -- since in our current economic system business gains tend to be privatized while costs and risks tend to be socialized. Also, if the S&P 500 drops by 75% and that drop is associated with substantial layoffs, one might expect government to step in and prop up companies at least long enough to bailout big investors (who are major political donors) and to manage unemployment rates (like when the US government bailed out GM). In a best bullish case though, the sky is the limit, and as Iain Banks wrote "Money is a sign of poverty". AI, 3D printing, solar energy, fusion energy, better batteries, and other technological advances -- if they benefit most people like Marshall Brain depicted in his "Manna" novella of James P. Hogan depicted in "Voyage from Yesteryear" -- may make all this analysis a moot point. That's the post-scarcity future I am hoping for. :-) It also makes betting against global growth (and, say, shorting the S&P 500) problematical no matter how many short-term crises we have ongoing. What if, say, we get cheap fusion energy next year and so the energy shock dissipates quickly? If more and more people take a broader perspective on abundance, we could collectively get to that post-scarcity system fairly soon -- if we don't keep blowing up productive infrastructure for whatever political reasons, or otherwise wasting so much abundance in various other ways, especially by using it to create artificial scarcity [to prop up dysfunctional out-dated social systems](https://web.archive.org/web/20080702023453/http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html). As I say in my sig: *"The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the* [*irony*](https://pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html) *of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."*

hadizadam

GM 💚

JPete4985

I hope that's satire. Trading below it's initial opening 7 years ish ago, down 90%+ from it's high when it did a swan dive from mid 50's to 5-6 a share, chinese government oversight skewing reporting and actual numbers, a massive voluntary recall that was just announced in early 2026... NIO has been a dud and will continue to be. It gained popularity early as a competitot to Tesla, failed to execute and the numbers show it. Now with intense EV competition to Tesla from real auto makers like Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Mercedes, BMW, Ford, GM, Volkwagon, Hyundai, etc... NIO is pretty much dead in the water IMO. They do not have the cash flow to continue to be a major player in the EV market, especially while producing an inferior product, limited marketing ability, limited R&D capital. The only reason it hasn't gone bust already is investment from the Chinese Government, which holds a large portion of the company.

hunnna

GM fam I'm kicked back at the Presidential Resort and Casino, having visions of concepts of a plan

hadizadam

GM 💚

luv2block

generally speaking they check the label... unless it's evident it's American, like Nike. People don't go into a GM car lot and say "Are these cars American?" They know they are American. The brand is American. I guess I could have been clearer on that.

hadizadam

GM 💚

glyptometa

BYD. Solid and stylish cars, with good tech, but they're more than that. Originally a battery company, and still strong in batteries. Not the top battery company in non-car power storage but still pretty big. Well managed too. They didn't try to move from battery production to cars on their own. They bought a company that was already producing cars. Berkshire Hathaway owned 10% of it for over 20 years, so that's some great management input built into the DNA. Building factories outside China; sells more electric cars than any other company. Also doing alright in buses, so likely well-positioned for growth in freight vehicles. Making solid strides in 5 and 10-minute charging as well, which will be important in some markets. All that USA-centric bafflegab about remotely shutting cars off is just hogwash. China believes in trading and commerce. As if they would clobber a market by shutting cars off. Hell, GM invented that capability! Listening to you? Tracking your movements? As if USA companies are not capable of all this and more. What an utter joke. Anyway, they're selling millions of cars all over the world, just not in that 4% of the market. Who cares. For heavens sake, they run their own self-owned car transport vessels. Seems they kinda know what they're doing.

mannycalls24

LMAO oil hit 96. GM to the bools and bulls only 🐂

TheodoreHollister

By the way, the “thousands“ is THIRTY THOUSAND people. Largeat mass lay off since GM and Circuit City in 2009. The real unreported story here is that Oracle took on 60 BILLION in debt the past two months. Even though they posted a 95% increase in net income last quarter, to maintain funding in the AI arms race, they have to fire 20% of their workforce just to remain solvent.

the__storm

Biggest layoff since \[checks notes\] GM and Circuit City in 2009. I'm sure we'll be fine.

hadizadam

GM 💚

weluckyfew

Tesla is currently valued at more than Toyota, Ford, GM, VW, Honda and BYD combined. It is beyond ridiculous. The usual answer the fanboys give is "It's not a car company, it's a tech company!" What tech? * Vaporware robots being pitched as household retail items, as if anyone is going to pay $40K+ for something to do the dishes and laundry (neither of which is realistic anytime soon anyway) My brother works for a real robotics company (actual commercial sales) and he always points out one simple fact: who is gonna buy a robot that could tip over and crush your toddler? * Grok AI? Currently has only a tiny market share, and is facing huge legal issues in Europe. * Its batteries? Chinese companies are setting the standards in that field.

LarryStink

Example 1.  GM3, and the many other meme stocks that were squeezed. As retail piled into calls and the MM providing liquidity for said calls were forced to repeatedly buy shares as prices went higher to maintain their neutral hedge.   Example 2. Opex Fridays. Typically in a positive gamma environment the MM are long the calls from all of the passive income etfs using covered call strategies. The so called "pinning effect" as they sell into rallies and buy into dips. Typically only noticeable when gamma is high and there is position concentration around key expirations.  Example 3. Negative gamma like current JPM collar. MM are short the puts and forced to sell futures as price declines below the 6475 strike. If market trade back into that level or above they close the futures by buying them back which is why In negative gamma price can be so volatile and extreme moves to both sides. That isnt active trader and investors positioning, thats MM hedging activity.  And the nuance to all of this that makes both you and I correct is this is all contained by the amount they need to hedge. Its not an infinite amount of buying or selling a security to be a price setter. They have a certain amount of exposure they need to hedge and thats based on what they have on their books. With all of this being said, I was never a market maker so my knowledge is 2nd hand from those who were. 

Joeskidoodles

GM from 🇬🇧 Coffee first, portfolio panic later 

BRICH999

If 1.3t can evaporate in a day, did it ever exist?  I'm not stupid and have a basic understanding of stock market, but I dont understand values.   Like at its peak tesla was worth more than the 16 largest car companies combined.  Could tsla have really bought like vw group, toyota, honda, ford, GM, bmw, daimler, Stellantis and the next 8 biggest auto manufacturers? My brain says no chance.  

hadizadam

GM! 💚

Ok-Adeptness-5834

I agree most of SP500 companies aren't doing AI research, but even the discrepancy at other large companies is very real. The CEO of GM/Ford are marking 30 million a year whereas CEO of BMW/Volkswagen is making 5-10 million, and these are the crowning jewels of the Germany economy whereas GM/Ford are old legacy companies in the American Rust Belt. (Let's just ignore Tesla and Elon Musk for now to keep this comparison somewhat fair). Obv that's the CEO but I imagine that pattern continues going down the ladder like your head of engineering or middle managers which I don't have public data for. But generally "brain drain" is much more meaningful at the top. Like when we took Germany's top rocket scientists to go to the moon. A couple of hundred or thousand superstars is definitely enough to change the trajectory of an economy.

hadizadam

GM 💚💚

extrabigbrain

You know how you role play as a GM or owner in your fantasy football league and shit talk in the group text or and boast made up proclamations and achievements. That’s the world we live in under this administration.

No-Improvement3164

How has GM not sold off

hadizadam

GM 💚💚💚🥂

hadizadam

GM 💚

ReDesignMe

Ok now I see where you're coming from and your concerns. So LAC tech is proven just not at industrial scale and feasibility study is economical (because otherwise they would never secure the $3B in investments from GM and DOE to build the mine) You see risk, I see opportunity in innovation and at the end of the day every investment, even your conservative indexes are a gamble as there are no guarantees of success anywhere. I'll monitor the construction progress and if they deliver on time and on budget this year I'm going in as already explained. The leverage before opening of mine will happen regardless, all miners go through it prior to cutting of ribbon and most likely will be a ×2 multiple. If you're correct and their extraction tech fails, I'll be up so much at that point I'll have time to bail while taking massive profits with me. Thanks for pointing that out to me though, it's definitely something to monitor and take into consideration. 

Jarlaxle_rigged_it

GM to the yankees & their conman in chief. Hope everyone's happy paying 30%+ for everything (just the beginning...) to finance Israel & the Epstein-pedos' war while they all make bank insider trading

Jarlaxle_rigged_it

GM dumb Yankees. You done got got by the conman in chief once more. Hope everyone is happy to pay 30% more for everything (just the beginning...) to finance Israel&Epstein pedo's war while they all make bank insider trading

Taro-Flaky

Fair point. But that's the concern about the old PENG business model. And if we were looking at PENG through that lens, you'd be right. Hardware resellers live and die by their suppliers' pricing decisions, which among other reasons, is why the stock has been stagnant for years. That’s the exact problem PENG brought on Kash Shaikh to solve. He didn't come from Dell to run a hardware reseller. He came from Securonix where he built a SaaS recurring revenue business as their CEO and president, to do the same at PENG. Likewise, Ian Colle didn't leave his AWS GM position to set up servers. They chose to leave those excellent positions and come to PENG to break the margin dependency that has pinned the company. They see something others don't. With PENG’s ICE Clusterware software, they’re moving revenue up the stack into software and managed services where Dell and HP's hardware pricing is irrelevant. However, they've only been with the company for just over a month. I don't expect crazy earnings this time around. I'm focused on the re-rating by the markets. ICE ClusterWare is PENG's software. Dell doesn't own it. HP doesn't own it. When an enterprise runs their AI cluster on ICE ClusterWare for two years, it becomes sticky. Switching costs are one of the moats they’re building toward. I admit a lot rides on the earnings call with Kash on April 1st. But if he is able to articulate the long-term vision and use their recent progress as proof of their pivot, I believe this company has strong earnings potential.