GM
General Motors Company
stock NYSE

Gamestop would at bare minimum be GS not GM. I assume general motors. But you do you.

GM ≠ GME

Typo there, I meant GM not GME

Is that GM or FORD, stock performance looks atrocious, he invested 220k and now it’s 341k ? So a 120k gain ?
Either ways a solid advice if you are not too stock savvy, throw 5-10k a year into index funds like VOO or FXAIX and don’t touch them for 15-20 years, they will outgrow a lot.

Ford and GM don't deserve to exist anymore

Hi again r/ValueInvesting, for those who haven't seen my posts before: I'm the GM of the stock research side at Obermatt, a Swiss investment research firm. We rank stocks across 60+ markets on four factors (Value, Growth, Safety, Sentiment) relative to their industry peers. Standard disclosure since I work there: this is Obermatt's own research, sharing it here because I think the framework is useful for this community, not because I'm selling anything in this post.
The AI-driven selloff pushed the whole SaaS sector below the broad market on forward earnings for the first time on record. It's tempting to treat that as one undifferentiated bargain bin. I ran our Value Rank on twelve well known SaaS names from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific to see if the data actually supports that. It doesn't. The Value Ranks span nearly the entire scale.
**Names that screen as genuinely cheap (Value Rank 55+):**
* **RingCentral** (Value 100): modest 5% revenue growth, but record operating margin, first-ever dividend, debt cleared through 2030.
* **Open Text** (Value 100): cloud business has grown organically for 21 straight quarters, GAAP net income up 86% last quarter.
* **Intuit** (Value 87, Combined 98): revenue up 10%, dividend raised 15%, stock still dropped 20% on results day.
* **Salesforce** (Value 87): Agentforce ARR passed $1.2B and grew 200%+, stock still down about a third over the year.
* **SAP** (Value 57): cloud revenue up 27% at constant currency, 21.9B euro cloud backlog, stock still down \~40% on the year.
* **Dassault Systèmes** (Value 55): fairly priced, but Growth Rank is only 31 on a 3% revenue quarter, so the valuation isn't really the story here, the slowdown is.
**Names that are cheap with a catch (Value Rank 40s):**
* **Adobe** (Value 47): reasonably priced, but Sentiment Rank is 25, the lowest of the twelve. AI-first recurring revenue tripled past $500M, but the market doesn't seem to believe it yet.
* **WiseTech Global** (Value 42): strong growth (93), moved \~95% of customers to transaction-based pricing as a structural hedge against AI eroding per-seat SaaS models, but Safety Rank is only 33 on the back of layoffs and restructuring.
* **Trend Micro** (Value 41): the boring, safe one. Safety Rank of 94, \~70% dividend payout ratio.
**Names still priced for perfection (Value Rank under 30):**
* **ServiceNow** (Value 27): beat every metric, raised AI revenue guidance, still fell 17% on results day, worst single session in company history. Sentiment Rank of 100 despite that.
* **Snowflake** (Value 4): product revenue up 34%, but you're paying full price for that growth to continue for years.
* **Cloudflare** (Value 1): grew 34%, its fastest in 6+ quarters, cutting \~1,100 roles to reposition around agentic AI. Still the most expensive name on the list by Value.
Full piece with sourcing on all the earnings/news above: [https://link.obermatt.com/saas-en/](https://link.obermatt.com/saas-en/)
Curious how this framework lands with people who do fundamentals-first investing. Does ranking Value against sector peers (rather than an absolute threshold like P/E under X) match how you think about relative value, or do you prefer a different lens entirely?

GM! I’m new to investing and my father told me that $ENE was a good investment in his day. Any other good stocks today like this one?

Any community with regular "GM" / "GN" posts is a cult and should be avoided. Be it apes, LinkedIn, crypto, whatever.

The Ford Maverick sold 155,000 units last year. The demand is absolutely there, and it's basically a Prius Pickup Truck that was around 29K. GM really is missing the boat on hybrids.

GM motors sold horsecarts once and when market pivoted they shifted. Read what happened to the horsecart businessmen rather than stopping by the first half.

It was specifically aimed at the focus and Malibu. Both entry cars in GM and Ford catalogs. I didn't want to get model deep. Both cars brought in lots of part revenue for dealers and GM/Ford.

> Detroit has largely struggled to consistently produce vehicles that dominate their class
Detroit struggle to produce vehicles that are *acceptable* in class. They are generally moribund, focusing on what they know, rather than where the market is going; and they are expensive. In consequence their last remaining foothold is really North America, everywhere else its Toyota/VW that dominate, with the chinese manufacturers learning and rising fast. Protectionist behaviours in the US have kept out the likes of BYD, but elsewhere the combination of an EV that just works, at a low enough price to afford, is eating market share. With the recent US induced fuel shock, they have been flying off the boats around the world, something you can't say of detroit's output.
Rough guess is the US brands, GM/Ford, will go bankrupt, for the last time, within a decade.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/best-selling-vehicles-full-res.html

The meta pump makes no sense serving other peoples stuff in your DC is a 20-30% GM. Unless they’re going to charge for their model which is 80%. Everything else looks more like an oracle play and is not valuable unless you can sell more than just the serving capacity

Ah yes GM. Famous cutting edge company gonna consume lots of RAM.

So MU down $122 / 10.57% on good news (GM deal).
So we are thinking full recovery overnight? Half recovery? Or not till close tomorrow?
Thoughts?

\> There should be a serious discussion on how Detroit has largely struggled to consistently produce vehicles that dominate their class …
I think the situation will be (should be) studied in MBA courses at Harvard Yale and Duke. I’m not an expert, but from my perspective, it seems like the profits are higher on those larger heavier, vehicles, and so that is where the attention of these auto makers shifts. They lack the long-term foresight, the ability or intention to adapt to what the future will hold, in favor of optimizing for short-term profits. Where short-term means this quarter, next quarter, this year. I have no idea, but it’s possible that the executive incentive plans do not include an element for profitability in five years. Toyota has a longer term outlook , according to my armchair perspective.
\> Politics aside, the fact that Tesla and Rivian can exist should be a strike against Detroit’s operation strategy. 
There’s a nuance. Neither of these new upstarts had to deal with the existing investments in labor, union contracts, physical plan, partner, relationships, dealer networks. The established incumbents had all of these things, which all contribute to a disincentive to innovate or change direction.
Then there is the massive subsidy that Tesla received as a new startup. They got government brakes for building new plants, as far as I know that’s not something that the government was offering to Ford or GM. And beyond that Tesla Skye high stock price provided really cheap financing for capital investments. Again a thing that Ford and GM could not replicate.
Not to mention Customer perspective. The F150 lightning I suppose was a reasonable truck. But the existing buyer audience apparently did not love it. So they canceled it. Tesla never had that problem. They were recruiting new buyers.
It’s fair to say the existence of Tesla is proof that it’s possible to create a different model.
\> But as an American, I’d absolutely love to buy American.
100%
with one exception: Weirdly; for my own personal opinion, while Teslas are built in the US, I would not buy one.

I think GM did die, then they quickly created a new, very similar company also called GM, hoping nobody would notice.

MU signs a deal with GM: stock 10% down
MU solves cancer : stock 20% down
MU creates anti gravity propulsion chips: stock 99% down

I think the only reason the big 3, especially GM, had a huge market share in the 50's and into the 60's was because the other countries were rebuilding. But the US makers had so much hubris, they thought thier success was because they moved chrome trim around every year and called it innovation.

GM, Ford and Stellantis aren't even on my radar, but I'm not in the market for a $65k truck or SUV.
The rest of the world is shifting rapidly to EVs. Soon, they won't have anyone outside the U.S. to sell to.