GM
General Motors Company
stock NYSE

Investing in studebager when fired GM and chrystler are all churning out 1st and second Gen cars

Ferrari as a brand and company is not comparable to Toyota, Honda, ford, GM. Ect.

on the flip side, Intel has skyrocketed for no reason, and GM also recently just doubled. Two companies I did not think was going to make a sudden flip comeback.

Yeah timing's the real risk, can't argue. Though the GM did say it's not labeling but expert STEM reasoning, the scarce stuff, so margins might look better than Scale's commodity tier. And it's already validated by Mag 7 buyers. One real contract print and it reprices fast. Curious if you think labs treat verified reasoning as commodity or not?

GM

GM Autists.

This is what I've pulled up for NMG.
Key Offtake Agreements & Strategic Partners
NMG's commercial strategy hinges on long-term, binding contracts that provide revenue certainty:
Government of Canada (30,000 tpa): A 7-year take-or-pay deal for raw concentrate with a fixed North American price, designed for G7 defense and commercial applications.
Panasonic Energy (13,000 tpa): A deal for Active Anode Material (AAM) produced at the Bécancour plant, with pricing linked to EV market indices and a protective floor price.Traxys (20,000 tpa): A 7-year agreement for industrial flake, including a 10,000 tpa firm take-or-pay volume for North American/European markets.
Strategic Third-Party Anode Manufacturer (GM): Following a restructure, NMG is finalizing terms to supply up to 30,000 tpa of raw feedstock to an anode manufacturer, with the material intended for General Motors' supply chain.

GM Corsair Gamers!

Wenn du meinen anderen Kommentar gelesen hast, wirst du schnell merken, dass ich meinen Ton immer meinem Gegenüber anpasse.
Wenn du, wie hier in deinen ersten Kommentaren, oder auch im anderen Thread in deinem Kommentar, einen gewissen Ton an den Tag legst, kannst du nicht erwarten, der recht abwertend gegenüber denen ist, die für Nein stimmen werden, dann musst du damit klarkommen, dass man Gleiches mit Gleichem entgegnet.
Deine Frage 1 war in dem Sinne irrelevant, dass es grade gar nicht um die Akquise von anderen Unternehmen geht, sondern um die von ebay.
Warum muss ich überhaupt für andere Unternehmen argumentieren, wenn es grade gar nicht darum geht?
Es ist die Aufgabe von GME passende Unternehmen zu analysieren und rauszupicken.
Das haben Sie mit eBay gemacht, wovon ein Teil der Investoren überzeugt ist, ein anderer nicht.
Da ist es doch wahnsinnig, dass du überhaupt solch eine Frage stellst.
Statt die Pro's und Contras bei ebay im Detail zu besprechen, weichst du ab, über andere Unternehmen zu diskutieren.
Das Problem bei Leuten wie dir ist dabei, dass man antworten muss, weil sonst wirst du selbstgefällig sagen: "schau mal der ist gegen ebay, aber kann kein besseres beispiel nennen, ich habe also recht"
Das du dabei ein massives Problem in der Logik hast merkst du dabei gar nicht, ich kann dir deswegen gar nicht böse sein.
Entsprechend antworte ich mit zwei Unternehmen, die GME nicht in die Unkosten treiben, ein starkes Umsatzplus bringen und Jahr für Jahr im Profit wachsen. Also ja, Buffet Strategie, unterbewertete Aktien kaufen. Burggräben sind dabei Teil der investmentphilosophie, aber schau dir mal Buffets Investments an, war es bei jedem einzelnen Fall gegeben? Wo war überhaupt der Burggraben bei Berkshire als Textilfabrik selbst?
Ich weiß schon wie es in deinem Kopf rattert und du sagst "das war ja der Anfang, das zählt gar nicht".
Deswegen gerne weitere Investments von Buffett, die ohne Moat sind, Sirius, Kraft Heinz, GM.
Offiziell von der Ratingagentur Morningstart als "No-Moat" klassifiziert.
Ich bin mal gespannt, wie du das nun wieder relativieren wirst.
Das eigene GME Geschäftsmodell ist in Bewegung. Mit Powerpacks kommt etwas spannendes neues hinzu.
Wir sind schuldenfrei und haben wie gesagt die Möglichkeit profitable Unternehmen mit dem Geld, was wir tatsächlich haben, zu kaufen, um unser Balance Sheet noch weiter zu stärken.
2. Wow. Da kündige ich sogar an, dass manche Menschen sich mit Beispielen schwer tun und gebe dir ein Heads up, aber dass es soweit geht, dass du es selbst damit nicht raffst, ist schon ein Phänomen.
Ein Beispiel dient oft dazu, dass man Dinge auch vereinfacht darstellt, damit es der Gegenüber besser nachvollziehen kann. Aber sei es drum.
Ich denke im übrigen nicht, dass es auf die Fundamentaldaten ankommt, wenn wir über MOASS reden. Das ist ein Trugschluss. Ein Short Squeeze ist reine Marktmechanik, ob das Unternehmen super profitabel und ein tolles Geschäftsmodell hat, oder die letzte Drecksbude ist dabei erneut sekundär.
Wenn du für MOASS wärst, dann würdest du nicht das Timing der ATM offerings ständig relativieren.
3. Ja, 40 - 60% sind aktuell in retail Händen.
Nach einem Merger sind es weniger.
Ich weiß nicht, was du da grade versuchst zu argumentieren. Das sind einfache Zahlen, simple Mathematik, Zahlen lügen in dem Fall nicht.
Nochmal ganz einfach:
Mehr Anteil: Mehr Signifikanz
Weniger Anteil: Weniger Signifikanz
Warum du auf einmal von einem Black Swan redest, ist auch wieder komplett random und tut erneut nichts zur Sache.
4. Schön, bis jetzt hast du die ATMs ständig relativiert.
Das das Timing sus ist hast du ständig deflektiert.
Und nein, ich habe nie zu einem random Merger gedrängt. Der Merger ist fundamental wichtig, aber für einen Squeeze nebensächlich.
Ryan soll einfach beim nächsten Run up keine Aktien veräußern und gut ist.
Deswegen: take your time. Such dir in Ruhe passende Optionen für einen merger raus und wenn du ready bist mach es. Die fundamentale Schiene läuft eh und wird hoffentlich durch den Merger noch stärker.
Die Squeeze Schiene wurde bisher immer gekillt und das erweckt nunmal kein Vertrauen.
It takes money to buy whiskey...but buy whiskey that you can actually afford.
Berechtigte Kritik nehme ich gerne ab, aber es bedarf auch, dass dein Gegenüber gewisse Dinge nachvollziehen kann.
Wie gesagt, ich kann dir wirklich überhaupt nicht böse sein, weil die Argumentationsketten so simpel sind, dass es mir leid tun würde Emotionen dafür zu verschwenden.
Um deine Position zu vertreten musst du übrigens nicht alles relativieren, was RC tut oder in dieser Saga geschieht. Im Gegenteil führt es eher zu einer Abwertung deines Standpunktes.
Kleiner Tipp noch am Ende. Ich würde dir empfehlen in deiner Stadt, bzw. an deiner nächsten Uni, dich mal in eine Philosophie (Logik) Vorlesung dazuzusetzen. Einführung in die Logik etc.
Das kann man meistens auch, wenn man es nicht studiert.
Davor würde ich aber noch "Logik für Dummies" von Mark Zegarelli empfehlen. Ist in dem Fall gar nicht despektierlich gemeint, so heißt einfach das Buch.
Es geht dabei rein um deine Argumentation, nicht um deine Position.
Wie gesagt, man kann für ebay sein, an die Vision glauben und dafür abstimmen. Aber wenn man dabei so selbstgefällig und abwertend gegenüber denen auftritt die Nein stimmen werden und dann aber nicht das einfachste Logikverständnis und die Fähigkeit besitzt eine ordentliche Debatte zu führen, entkräftigt es enorm die Stärke der eigenen Position, die wie gesagt, eigentlich ok ist.
Wenn du einen gewissen Ton nutzt, muss du erwarten, dass dein Gegenüber dies auch tut.
Schau gerne einfach nochmal in deinen Kommentar im anderen thread, wie du in so etwas einsteigst :)

Could have bought F or GM but no I bought Microsoft

Most CHGG threads are stuck arguing about the cash and the balance sheet. I want to talk about the AI side instead, cause I think that's where the real disagreement is and nobody's actually digging in.
So they spun up a team for this, AI Services, with its own GM. The guy came back to Chegg specifically to build it, and apparently they'd been working on it quietly for months before saying anything. What they sell is their pile of expert-checked, step-by-step STEM solutions, licensed to AI labs as training data, plus their experts grading and training models. Same data Scale and Surge are worth billions for.
The GM saying it's beyond simple data labeling. They're going after the hard reasoning stuff, the problems frontier models still get wrong, which is the part labs actually pay up for. And he says, present tense, they're already working with some of the Magnificent Seven on their next models. Already happening, not a someday thing.
Here's what I can't square though. The short data doesn't match that story at all.
Not a squeeze, before anyone gets excited. Borrow normal, SI only 7% of float, score I ran is 17/100. Nothing trapped here. But shares short are the highest in months and days to cover is up 26% over 90 days. So shorts are adding, not covering. Caveat that the SI number lags a couple weeks so it's not perfectly clean, but the trend's been climbing for a while now.
Which is the interesting part imo. Either they think the AI thing is a press release that never becomes revenue (fair, given Chegg's history), or they're still short the dead homework story and haven't repriced the new one. If it's the second, an actual contract print hits them on fundamentals, no squeeze needed.
So idk, I'm genuinely split. AI demand looks real and it's the biggest buyers out there. The shorts look confident and they're not dumb money. One of them's wrong, just can't tell which yet.
And honestly the squeeze angle kind of misses the bigger thing. People still talk about Chegg like it's one dying business, but it's three things now. The old learning product everyone's busy burying. Skilling, which is the Busuu language stuff plus corporate upskilling, going after a market somewhere around $40B. And now AI Services on top. Shorts are basically betting the first one goes to zero and acting like the other two aren't there. Maybe they're right and the core drags it all down. But that's a way harder short to hold than just "Chegg fades again," and I don't think half the people piling in have thought about which one they're actually short.
So yeah. What's the actual bear case that isn't just "it's Chegg, it always fades"? If the revenue shows up, why doesn't it matter?

Do you need the $ or is it a long term investment? If the latter, hope for dips and double down! I hope the market goes down 15% tomorrow. Because I don’t need my invested $ tomorrow, and I have more $ to invest tomorrow. I trust the long term growth in the market based on proven history. I also recognize that we are living in perhaps the most innovative and opportunity-rich time that any generation has ever seen, from a stock market investment perspective. If everything stayed the same over time (Sears, McDonalds, GM, Exxon, Delta, etc) then growth in the stock market would be minimal. Innovation in services and products, with new industries emerging, and new companies being formed, is what drives the stock market higher. There will be bubbles and companies that won’t survive, but this wave will continue!

On QAV this week, I did a deep dive on an interesting company I'd never heard of before, Magna International (NYSE:MGA).
They're a Canadian automotive supplier or "mobility technology company", that I'm guessing nobody outside of the car industry has ever heard of, despite the fact that they've probably made half the car you have parked in your garage.
They seem to be a genuinely great business that's been around for 70 years, got caught holding the wrong assets at the wrong time, and the market has been punishing it for the last four or five years.
But things seem to be turning around and it seems to be coming back.
Great founding story, a guy called Frank Stronach was born in a tiny village in Austria in 1932.
His original name was Strohsack, which Google Translate says means "straw sack" in German, which was what their beds literally were back in ye olden days, mattresses stuffed with straw.
So somewhere in his family tree, some ancestor was the local bedmaker.
Anyway, he left school at 14 to become a tool and die maker, precision metalworking.
And at the age of 22, 1954, he packed up and moved to Canada, arrived in Montreal, got on a bus to Kitchener, Ontario, and took a job as a dishwasher.
Two years later in 1956, he rented a garage in Toronto and started a company called Multimatic Investments.
He slept on a cot (I hope it was a straw mattress) in the corner of the shop.
It's like your classic Silicon Valley startup story, except it happened in Ontario in greasy overalls with a lathe in the corner.
It took him another 13 years to get his first automotive parts contract in 1969.
Then he merged with a company called Magna Electronics, and in 1973, the whole thing became Magna International.
And along the way, he developed a quasi-socialist view of how to run the business, which I admire.
In 1971, he wrote a formal profit sharing structure directly tied into Magna's corporate charter, where 10% of pre-tax profits goes to employees every year before anyone else gets their cut.
Another 7% goes to management and a minimum of 20% of net profits had to be returned to shareholders as dividends.
And this was written in a way that the arrangement couldn't ever be changed without the consent of employees as well as shareholders and management.
So he believed that employees, as well as management, should have skin in the game.
They'd work harder.
There'd be less industrial action, less waste, better output.
And he turned it into a $40 billion company.
There's also an expectation that directors and members of the board have to hold a significant chunk of company shares, which I like.
I always like to see skin in the game from management.
It's not all roses, though.
By the early 2000s, Stronach had a classic Founder King, Rupert Murdoch style setup, Class A shares for the public and a special share class for himself that gave him a huge amount of voting power.
And by 2010, shareholders had pushed back hard enough that the dual class structure was eliminated.
He got a huge payout, billions of dollars in compensation and basically stepped away from operational control of the company.
So he's been gone for the better part of a decade and a half, which is good because not only did he start a thoroughbred horse breeding company with his daughter, who he then sued for mismanagement, he's currently on trial in Toronto on charges of sexual assault involving seven women - at the age of 93.
Allegations going back to the 80s and 90s, he plead not guilty.
Verdict is expected in the next couple of months with a second trial delayed to 2027.
But I want to be clear, none of this touches the business.
He's been gone for 15 years, as I said.
It's just a sad postscript to the story of the straw mattress guy who built an empire.
So what does Magna actually do?
You can think of them as the company that makes almost everything on or in a car and occasionally makes the whole car.
Four divisions, body exteriors and structures is the biggest, doing about 16 to 17 billion dollars a year.
They make door panels, bumpers, hoods, the structural pillar next to your windscreen.
If you've ever reversed into a shopping trolley, you probably dented something that Magna made.
Margins around 6.7% in Q1 2026.
Power and Vision is the second division, about 15 to 16 billion dollars a year.
They make cameras, driver monitoring systems, mirrors, transmission systems and the eDrive units that power electric vehicles.
Margins here jump from 3.4% to 6.5% in the last year, which is a big turnaround story we'll get to.
Seating systems is about 5.5 billion a year.
They just make seats.
Just-in-time delivery to car assembly lines that was losing money a year ago.
Now it's back to positive.
Complete vehicles is the weirdest one, about four and a half billion dollars a year.
So an automaker comes to Magna and says, we want to make this car, but the volumes aren't big enough for us to bother manufacturing it ourselves, just build it for us.
And Magna does, soup to nuts, the entire vehicle.
It's like Coca-Cola outsourcing the actual manufacturing of Coke to a third party and just managing the brand and marketing.
This is what some car companies do with Magna.
Total revenue guidance for 2026 is 41.5 to 43.1 billion.
So why is it cheap?
They've had a painful few years.
In 2021, 2022, everyone in the auto industry convinced themselves were EVs were the future and they went all in.
Ford went all in, GM went all in, and Magna, as a supplier to all of them, went and spent a massive amount of money building out EV manufacturing capability.
Battery enclosures, electronics, eDrive systems, the works.
Then the EV wave has taken a few hits.
Consumers kept buying big petrol trucks.
I did a show on Ford about a year ago where I remember they took a multi-billion dollar write down on their EV division. (I remember people telling me what a dog Ford was at the time. Their stock is up 47% since then.)
GM pulled back and Magna was left holding a pile of EV assets that weren't going to generate the returns they were supposed to deliver.
So in 2025, they took a 591 million dollar write down.
Then in Q1 2026, another 485 million dollar write down on the lighting and rooftop business they're now selling off... over a billion dollars written off in 18 months.
Then, of course, Trump came in last year and slapped 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, which is where Magna makes most of its stuff.
The share price had been around 98, 99 dollars back in 2021.
It hit 33 dollars in April 2025, which aligns kind of perfectly with peak tariff panic and peak EV write down despair.
But now, as we all know, the tariffs were deemed illegal or unconstitutional or something by SCOTUS.
So things are turning around for these guys.
The CEO is an engineer called Swami Kotagiri, who's been at the company for decades and took the chair in 2021 right at the peak of the EV frenzy.
He's the one now selling off the non-core assets, tightening margins and cleaning up the mess.
I won't bore you with all the numbers (I went through them on the podcast), but the key thing that placed it on my buy list this week is the price to operating cash flow of 4.22.
That's a very low multiple for a business of this scale and quality.
We're talking about a company doing 40 billion dollars of revenue with deep relationships across every major automaker in North America, Europe and China. And although I expect we're going to see lots of changes in how people think about buying and owning cars in the next decade, I don't think it's going to happen in the next few years. And my job isn't to predict the future. It's to find value opportunities in quality businesses.
Either way, Magna's probably going to have a big chunk of whatever gets built for a long time to come.
DYOR. Not financial advice. I'm just an guy who makes podcasts for a living.

Investing in studebager when fired GM and chrystler are all churning out 1st and second Gen cars

Ferrari as a brand and company is not comparable to Toyota, Honda, ford, GM. Ect.

on the flip side, Intel has skyrocketed for no reason, and GM also recently just doubled. Two companies I did not think was going to make a sudden flip comeback.

Yeah timing's the real risk, can't argue. Though the GM did say it's not labeling but expert STEM reasoning, the scarce stuff, so margins might look better than Scale's commodity tier. And it's already validated by Mag 7 buyers. One real contract print and it reprices fast. Curious if you think labs treat verified reasoning as commodity or not?

GM

GM Autists.

This is what I've pulled up for NMG.
Key Offtake Agreements & Strategic Partners
NMG's commercial strategy hinges on long-term, binding contracts that provide revenue certainty:
Government of Canada (30,000 tpa): A 7-year take-or-pay deal for raw concentrate with a fixed North American price, designed for G7 defense and commercial applications.
Panasonic Energy (13,000 tpa): A deal for Active Anode Material (AAM) produced at the Bécancour plant, with pricing linked to EV market indices and a protective floor price.Traxys (20,000 tpa): A 7-year agreement for industrial flake, including a 10,000 tpa firm take-or-pay volume for North American/European markets.
Strategic Third-Party Anode Manufacturer (GM): Following a restructure, NMG is finalizing terms to supply up to 30,000 tpa of raw feedstock to an anode manufacturer, with the material intended for General Motors' supply chain.