GM
General Motors Company
stock NYSE

The US government has at times aided auto, commercial aviation (pandemic), insurance and finance (financial crisis) industries. If not for that, a great many more long standing US companies would have fell. And they let Washington Mutual fall, but chose to save others. GM is a hundred years old company - but have you seen their stock chart? It only goes back less than 2 decades - because saved by US govt.
US interest in INTC is purely geopolitical. They want to de-risk threat of losing access to TSM. INTC fab business has been a mess, but it would be the closest US can get right now to replacing TSM.

GM from NW 🇬🇧 Have a gr8 day all. Let’s goooo! 🚀🚀🚀💥📈🍻🤑

I hate the ‘government won’t let them fail’ argument because investors can still be wiped out. GM and chrysler investors were wiped out even though the government bailed out the companies. Besides, the stock could still drop 99% without failing.

E*xactly, as when we bailed out GM, banks, etc. In this case it makes sense if TSMC gets taken out by China, etc. Plus there are more CPUs needed than GPUs.*

Tesla isn’t even there because of it being an auto company. GM has found a lot of success with their software division, others starting to follow suit.

I would sell Nio and buy F And GM. 

I agree with you. I think the broader economy is beginning to rollover and software is going to be replaced by AI. SaaS is on its way out, and these mega companies are gonna backslide into being the next ford, or GM. Legacy industry that will always be around, but it ain’t gonna be big money.

TL/DR: EVgo represents a leveraged play in the EV / autonomous driving markets. The insanely high switching costs gives this company a moat that rivals that of enterprise SaaS in the 2000s and 2010s. In my opinion, their partnership and buildout strategy is the best in the business. With the new EV market having digested the federal tax rebate cut, states instituting their own incentives to replace it, new affordable EVs coming to market driving primary purchase market, and multiple catalysts driving adoption in the secondary market, the path to robust profitability is likely to occur faster than the market is predicting.
(At the end I write up what I feel each of these value investors would say about the company)
EVGO is an electric vehicle charging infrastructure company.
Everything you need to know:
Operating footprint and hardware:
1. \~1,200 fast charging stations across 47 states. \~40% of US population lives within 10 miles of an EVGO fast charging station
2. 60% of stations are ultra-fast 350kW chargers which can add 150 miles of charge in 10-12 minutes, depending on vehicle capability.
3. Aggressively onboarding Tesla-compatible NACS hardware through 2036 and 2027.
Partnerships:
1. Major ongoing rollout at high-traffic Kroger locations
2. Meijer Stores: Major Midwest expansion rolling out \~480 fast-charging stations
3. Long-standing partnerships with WaWa, Whole Foods, and Simon Property Group
4. GM: Crown jewel, multi-year partnership to roll out 400 ultra-high-power stalls at premium locations in key states (California, Georgia, Florida, New York, Texas)
5. 3-way partnership with Pilot / Flying J, and GM to roll out stations throughout critical interstate corridors…infrastructure that is sorely lacking across most of the US, and is a critical factor in EV adoption. More interstate capacity means more people willing to adopt EV as primary vehicle.
6. Toyota partnership to build out fast charging network, as well as provide 1 year free charging for new bZ4X buyers.
7. Uber & Lyft: integrated into apps to provide discounted charging for drivers
8. Spinning up partnerships with autonomous fleet operators (like Waymo) for dedicated charging facilities in dense test-bed markets
Company Facts:
1. Top line has grown 45% YOY
2. 17 consecutive quarters of double-digit top line growth
3. Gross margin expansion from 14% - 39% from 2021 - 2026
4. On the cusp of EBITDA profitability and positive FCF (likely to be rerated when this happens)
5. 1,400 - 1,600 stall expansion essentially already fund through government credit facility and commercial credit facility. De-risks dilution risk. Still likely for more dilution, but not for stall buildout.
6. As the depreciation for these stalls roll off the financials and capex decreases, we will see the cash flow leverage this business will generate.
Catalysts:
1. \~1.5 million leased EVs roll of leases from 2026 - 2028, with these vehicles likely to sell into the secondary market.
2. Secondary market has a significant share of consumers in multi-family housing and / or street parking where home-based charging is not possible
3. Infrastructure buildout has double impact: more units for charging throughput and also increasing adoptions as consumers trust they can have reliable, fast charging whenever and wherever they need it.
4. Fleet / Autonomous / B2B customers / partners: High-mileage (meaning significant charging needs) increases stall utility, increasing operating leverage and directly increasing gross margin
5. In regards to fleet operations, EVGO is capturing significant market share early on.
6. EXTREMELY HIGH switching costs. Once installed this represents significant moat. I would argue that although this is not an asset-light operation…in the age of AI this is exactly like the rise of high switching costs, asset light, reliable ARR model that drove software to be significant compounders throughout 2000s and 2010s
7. EV market has bottomed, with cut to federal EV credits having been digested. EV sales have stabilized and begun to up-tic. Factoring in the used EV sales numbers (that just hit the highest quarterly level on record) it is clearly beginning to rise again.
8. Since the drop of the federal tax credit, many states have implemented their own credit or incentive in one form or another, supporting adoption.
9. Lower-cost EVs will (in combination with reader infrastructure driving charging trust with customers) will decrease barriers to adoption…along with the growth of the secondary market. Rivian R2, Volvo EX30 hitting the \~$40k market for middle-class / upper-middle class consumers. Chevy Bolt has been brought back, with some models hitting below <$30k. Redesigned Nissan Leaf is in $30k - $35k range and is..for lack of a better term…actually a little sexy.
Other entry level or middle class models:
Kia EV3
Hyundai Ioniq 5
Hyundai Kona Electric
Chevy Equinox EV
There are likely more my research didn’t turn up.
Point is…the more entry level models / used models purchased….the more likely is that person lives in housing that doesn’t afford the luxury of installing fast-charging at home…which means EVgo’s high-density strategy, along with key partnerships, will provide high utilization and high operating leverage.
Path to Profitability:
While the company is constantly innovating stall manufacturing process to lower COGS, the key here is kWh/day:
**(Throughout per stall) \* (margin per kWh) = (stall gross profit)**
Q4 2025 showed average daily throughput per stall stood at 292 kWh / day
Projections and operational leverage models show that average daily throughput of roughly \~330 - 350 kWh / day would move EVgo easily into profitability, with any efficiencies in manufacturing cost reduction / labor cost reduction directly hitting gross margin expansion. With throughput for installed units increasing drastically, and operational efficiencies growing, I feel this path will happen sooner than market predicts.
Peter Lynch: Fast-Grower with more than sufficient capitalization in an overlooked / misunderstood industry where the hype has died and scaled unit economics provides clear operational leverage.
Weschler (Berkshire): Trailing earnings are irrelevant. EVgo is locking in premium real estate in key local markets that would take competitors double the CapEx and 5 years to try and replicate. i.e. clear moat.
Einhorn: Market is shorting this stock / undervaluing this stock because it is pricing in a permanent decline in *new, luxury EV sales*. Structural reality is a boom and growing boom in used EV sales, with a significant portion of those sales going to customers in large metros with limited or no ability to charge at home.
Miller: Value isn't "low P/E". It is a massive disconnect between a company's present enterprise value and its future discounted cashflows.\~$600 million dollar market cap is mispricing a company with a CLEAR path to $500 million in EBITDA by 2030 and significant operating leverage for an asset-heavy company.
Munger: It is an intelligent speculation if buying it for the infrastructure and the cost it would take to rebuild it today, but it isn't a high-flying tech stock. Used EV sales growth + urban renters + fleet drivers / autonomous buildout = clear, structural "lollapalooza" effect... less psychologically and more structurally, with multiple trends and catalysts all moving in the same direction to a logical conclusion: more throughput. This also represents clear characteristics of a "tollbooth" effect. The state of US energy infrastructure means utilities and municipalities only have so many multi-megawatt pipelines they can allow to come out of the ground. EVgo locking in these pipelines in very dense metropolitan areas creates a moat that is very difficult for a Johnny-come-lately to replicate.

> GM EV1, which they had to recall.
check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

>remember what a failure electric cars were the first time around with GM EV1, which they had to recall.
No, I don't remember that at all. EV1 was never sold to the public, it could only be leased. GM then ended production because the regulatory pressure was removed in California and they saw no future in selling or leasing the cars. GM reclaimed and crushed most of the cars (because they could, there were no car owners).
The issues in EV1 was a charging port cable, which could have easily have been fixed instead of all the cars being crushed. And the first gen battery degrading faster than expected. This wasn't an issue because they could just swap the batteries with second gen due to the cars being leased.
As for AI, we already had two AI winters. But if you look into reasons why, you will see that that's not at all the case now. Even when the explosive growth stops and we go back to reasonable spending, AI will not be disappearing like it did before. Even if AI stopped getting better right now, like the current models were the best that could ever be achieved, there's a very big gap in how its being utilized now and what is possible.

imagine if AI now is the first iteration of EV cars. a disaster. nothing to show for it.
remember what a failure electric cars were the first time around with GM EV1, which they had to recall.
oh man, what a crash the stonk market would see.

I accidentally held GM through their bankruptcy in 2008 because I don’t know how to set up a stop loss the right way in my Scottrade account

REalloys. Starts production early next year. It will join the Russell 3000 index on 29th June. It's in the right industry at the right time and place. Stephen Dumont who is president of GM defence is non exec chairman of REAlloys. One of the advisors worked with Pete Hegseth so am expecting the US government to take a stake. There is too much to mention here but worth looking in to.

*(Note: I originally posted this on another board but Reddit suggested people on this board might find it interesting. I'm a creative writer who wrote a book on storytelling and now use what I learned about story to my stock analysis. This method, which I call "Narrative Investing" is still in development and the goal is to help analyze intangibles with some objective criteria. This is not about meme stocks, story stocks or trend following.)*
Now seems like a really good time to look at the term "Narrative" which is a word that could be used in a more productive way than it usually is.
A narrative is simply a story we tell ourselves about what will happen.
We can't process all the data of reality - sights, sounds, smells, memories, internal voices, actions of crowds, etc without constructing narratives, or stories, about what will happen.
Your teenage child is out an hour after curfew and has not texted. You're walking alone late at night and there's a tall shadowy fellow standing on the corner you need to turn down. Your unstable but brilliant brother in law wants you to invest in his all-nacho joint. You respond to these things by telling stories about what you think has happened or will happen. Then decide how to respond based on the story you tell about what will happen if you do A, B or C As biologist E.O. Wilson said your brain is a "narrative generating machine."
Two things investors do with story that I think are not ideally productive are 1) Separate the narrative from the numbers and 2) Overrate the value of numbers, ignoring intangibles that also fuel stories.
**1) Narrative and Numbers are NOT separate: the numbers are a crucial part** ***of*** **the narrative.**
Narratives are fueled by central dramatic questions, which are basically "Will the Hero do X?" Will the boy get the girl, cop get the killer, doctor cure the patient, etc. This is critically important. A great story is fueled by LOGIC. It ends in a way that logic dictates. The travesty at the end of Godfather II and miracle at the end of Rocky both work because you believe them based on the logic of what has happened.
When you look at how exhausted, spent, hated, betrayed, lost, conflicted Michael has become and look at his father, mother, older brother, rivals, wife/unborn child, culture, the state of the corrupt world, you believe he could do the unthinkable. When you look at how badly Rocky needs to go the distance and how distracted Apollo Creed is (and many other factors) you believe the ending could happen. If you believe in a story its core truth grows on you. If you don't you call "Bull (expletive)" and discard it.
In stocks, the hero of the story is the CEO and his band of brothers/sisters. But to keep it simple, let's focus on the CEO. We are asking basically, "Can X CEO do Y resulting in Z - meaningful stock price appreciation?" To accurately assess the odds of the CEO doing what he says he'll do you need to analyze the numbers. Can he sell x widgets? At what cost? What are the profit margins, etc.. *The numbers are an essential part* ***of*** *the narrative.*
When analysts use the term "story stock" what they mean is it's a bull dook story based entirely on things happening that have a low probability of success, not backed by numbers, logic or sometimes even basic sanity. Those who feel we're in a bubble use the metaphor of Wile E. Coyote running over the cliff. Then when he looks down, with only air beneath him he falls. The metaphor basically implies he has no math beneath him, no logic or physics. He has no reason to remain airborne.
The numbers are essential valuing the story. But that said...
**2) Numbers are only ONE part of the story. Unquantifiable intangibles are the other.**
As a narrative investor I can't help but laugh when "value" investors become enraged by valuations they find unrealistic. You can just see them slapping their own heads like Rain Man beneath a shrieking smoke detector because they are certain they know the Truth - truth backed up by numbers. Of course there are bubbles and times where stock prices get ludicrous beyond belief. And their rage is justified. That's not what I'm talking about here.
What I'm talking about are legitimately important intangibles - CEO intelligence, innovation, marketing, branding, alignment between the mission of the company and the times we live in, passion of the workers, unity of the team and straight up ability of the CEO to convince himself, his team, partners, buyers, analysts, retail investors, etc that he can do incredible things.
Imagine two identical companies - same factories, products, sales, margins, number of workers, etc. Make them as identical as you possibly can. Now put Jeff Bezos as CEO of one and our kookie nacho-loving brother-in-law in the other. Do you give them the same valuation? Do you know how well Bezos will execute? How many products he'll create to radically re-imagine nacho generation?
What I think is happening is in the age of social media, massive technological change, artificial intelligence, deep fakes, influencers, online retail investor communities, and declining faith in expertise and institutions - intangibles that fuel stock prices have become more important, or more intense, for longer periods of time.
I still think numbers are critically important - even would say the most important factor. But stock prices are set by human beings. And human beings make decisions VISCERALLY, emotionally, on a primal level *then* back in logic.
This is incredibly important. I can't find it now but once read about a study in which an audience watched films of people applying for jobs. After 1 second, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 20 minutes they were asked to say what they felt about the candidates. And the study found people rarely change their mind. They might not like the guy's face, hair, posture, clothes, or he might remind them of someone they love or hate. But when asked why they made their decision to hire him or not they will say very thoughtful logical things about resumes, knowledge, etc. They are never going to admit they just can't stand the guy's ugly mug.
**Conclusion**
The bottom line is in a market place people pay whatever they want to pay, for any reason they want to pay it. If you're focused exclusively on numbers you may value CrowdStrike one way. If you factor in George Kurtz's charisma, passion for racing, pinstripe suits, tough talk, the name "CrowdStrike," the icons of the "adversaries," the name Falcon, and how they handled a recent debacle you may be willing to pay much more. This has been called a "Narrative Premium." But really it should be called the "Intangible" premium.
To be honest I'm working out my thoughts as I write and I think what I'm realizing is **Numbers +** ***Intangibles*** **= Narrative.** There are intelligent narratives, or stock stories fueled by fantastic numbers and elite intangibles. And there are stock stories that are fueled by a gross imbalance of hype, dreams and lunatic conjecture.
I can't do math. I can only analyze intangibles. And the point is you can, with intuition, taste, judgement, emotional intelligence, a feel for cool factor, experience and a sense for the zeitgeist make reasonable assessments based on logical criteria. You can rank leadership, branding, past accomplishments on a 1-10. And we can all use the FEEL of message boards, YouTube, SubStack, CNBC, Seeking Alpha analysts, etc. to simply feel where things are at on a macro level and a stock specific level.
If you are watching the movie Braveheart and tasked with evaluating the odds of Sir William Wallace leading his renegades to victory you can't just count armor, horses, weaponry. You have to *guess* at the impact of the leader.
You ever notice how some companies come onto our collective radar with really good numbers. And no one gives a baboon's swinging arse about it. Crickets. While other companies spark people into near rioting. No one cares about Kulicke & Soffa. But put a group of Iren investors in a room with Nebius investors and a full blown West Side Story dancing knife fight might break out. Why? Intangibles stir people on these.
Bottom line II - I like bottoms - is we should want it all. Incredible numbers and fantastic intangibles. You feel this in sports. Your favorite team has a new GM, new coach, new captain, inspired players, healthy players, great mix of veterans and youth, and their stats are fantastic. Other years you know your team is in for abject misery.
Successful investing is about balance. Too much focus on numbers and you can miss tells about where the company is heading. Too much focus on intangibles and you're in fantasyland. I just had Claude analyze my investments since 2020. My worst one, by far, was Lemonade. I fell for a story without doing the critical work of stealing analysis from guys like Bear, Stock Novice and people who can do analysis. I was imbalance and got lit up.
So if you think your company will find gold on Uranus, and the valuation already assumes it will happen you may be delusional. But likewise, if you think your company should be X price but it never moves the way you insist it should, you are likely missing intangible factors others values higher than you do. Numerical arrogance can be just as damaging ot your returns as hero worship.
We can't control our outcomes but we can control the quality of our decisions. We only ever regret being careless and reckless. An intelligent decision that simply doesn't go your way is no crime. I'm incredibly grateful to WPR and Bear for creating this board to help us make the best decisions we can, especially when it's hard to know what's really going on. We all add the most value when our posts are fueled by the unique game we each play. Mine is Narrative Investing. I hope this post inspires you to define your style. With volatility likely to increase this will be critical to success.
Broadway Dan

GM all.
I'm very happy and encouraged by Glen's recent success converting Luminar deals to Microvision. More please.
I'm similarly encouraged by QQ's recent push for Microvision to pursue more creative and shareholder friendly financing options. While they may not want to pursue it, investors still have enough voting rights to at a minimum force consideration.
Reading comments for the last few days, in combination with the company's announcements, upcoming conversations and financing requirements, I think it is important to remember that no matter how good these development deals could be, no matter how big CAT is (whether you recognize that there are larger companies in the world or not, and whether you recognize that a paying deal with a smaller company is worth more near term than the CAT one 😉), until Microvision updates guidance or provides a detailed path of execution, milestones, deliverables, and receivables, they are not only still facing the exact same financing needs relative to FY guidance that they were to start the year, those needs are exasperated by these deals.
The last point is an assumption, but one that is far safer to make than the contrary. Development costs money. The company's needs are near term. '26 guidance was excellent relative to prior years, assuming Glen is better with his numbers than Sumit was, but it was already not enough to avoid the r/S and dilution mechanisms. Large development deals add to that need at the very least until MVIS says that the costs are going to be covered by NRE etc cash that was not already guided.
Developement deals are excellent confirmation, but MVIS still needs to pay to keep going, and needs to pay more the harder they go. Real money needs to come in at some point soon, otherwise:
The current set up is for these dev deals to be used to sell the r/s and dilution mechanisms under a future is bright, we have traction framing. Similar to prior dilution, although on what looks like a much firmer ground. Further execution, upward revisions to guidance, etc have a lot of headroom where they are simply making a stronger case for trusing the r/s and dilution and before they even really get close to staving it off.

GM. Are we having fun yet?

He isn't Jensen Huang, the companies will probably be similar from a leadership and operational perspective if he leaves. Some people buy in because of his wealth and connections so the price would drop a bit, but I would bargain the companies would be still focus on the same wild targets.
SpaceX is not profitable right now and while it should grow revenue and margins, the P/E ratio is through the roof for TSLA and would be for SpaceX if it wasn't an N/A right now. Over time I would expect reality to take over and bring both of these down to earth. TSLA could drop 95% and still have a roughly double the PE of Toyota and GM.
Both of these companies are priced on extreme forward expectations of AI, space exploration, and self-driving cars, things Elon has promised and missed on regularly over the last couple of decades. I wouldn't touch either one of them but in the short-term I could see volatility plays for people.