GM
General Motors Company
stockNYSE

- 10:42 "Jim Cramer explaining the basics of stock market manipulation #JimCramer #Manipulation #market" - https://youtu.be/8DJlogbrDcA uploaded 2021 February 3 - 10:42 "Jim Cramer, 2006 discussion about tricks to manipulate the market" - https://youtu.be/jIfixbq_u0Q uploaded 2021 January 28 - [censored by deplatforming after 2026 April 21] "Jim Cramer from Mad Money in 2006 discusses tricks he use[d] to pull to manipulated stocks. Credit: Judd Bagley" - https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/lg0ial/jim_cramer_explains_how_he_manipulated_the_market/ - https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/opi1yr/jim_cramer_2006_discussion_about_tricks_to/ - also see https://old.reddit.com/submit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjIfixbq_u0Q - also see https://old.reddit.com/submit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FjIfixbq_u0Q - "Cramer on How Hedge Funds are Scamming the Market" - https://youtu.be/gyaPf6qXLa8?si=R-_VZILLIM7PEZKG uploaded 2020 April 5 - "Bloomberg Special Report - Phantom Shares (25 min)" - https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/https://youtube.com/watch?v=7fcre8P2UUY / https://archive.today/uXbT3 uploaded 2007, March 13 by squeezetriggerreport - [censored by deleting by user before 2008 January 13 - "Jim Cramer and Stockwire.com" - https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/https://youtube.com/watch?v=708wDFX28lc / https://archive.today/Y3Tqx uploaded before 2007 Some highlights: > 1:27 "and by the way, no one else in the world would ever admit that, but I can care [less] (That's right, and you can say that here) and I can't... I'm not going to say it on tv" > 1:49 "You've really got to control the market. You can't let it lift. When you get a research in motion, it's really important to use a lot of your firepower to knock that down because it's the fulcrum of the market today. So let's say I were, uh, I was short, what I would do is I would hit a lot of guys with rim [research in motion]. Now you can't foment. That's a violation of... You can't foment, you can't create a... yourself an impression that a stock's down, but you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it, so you, I mean it's, that's the only sense that I would say this is illegal, but a hedge fund that's not up a lot really has to do a lot now to save itself" > 3:15 "Again, when your company's in a survival mode, it's really important to defeat research in motion and get the [Bob] Pisani's of the world, and the people talking about it as if there's something wrong with rim [research in motion], then you would call the journal and you get the bozo reporter in research in motion and you would feed [them] that there's a Palm's got a killer [story]; it's going to give away. These are all the things you must do on a day like today, and if you're not doing it, maybe you shouldn't be in the game" > 4:44 "... you use a 'hat' firm that doesn't know what the heck it's doing, maybe you go to UBS for puts, and and you just kind of create an image that there's going to be news next week, and that's going to frighten everybody and then you... they all go out and say large put buyer UBS, and then they call Pisani, again you have to use those guys ... and these are all what's really going on in the market that you don't see (Right, and nobody else talks about it)" > 5:08 "What's important when you're in that hedgefund mode, is to not do anything remotely truthful. because the truth is so against your view, that it's important to develop a new truth, to develop a fiction" > 5:41 "We're making the cash much more important than the fundamentals." > 5:45 "Who cares about the fundamentals? Research and motion just blew out the quarter, but look at what the people can do. I mean, that's a fabulous thing. Is......a great thing about the market is there's nothing to do with the actual stocks. Now, look, over maybe two weeks form now, the buyers will come to their senses and realize that everything that they heard was a lie" ---- full transcript: > 0:04 Welcome to Wall Street Confidential. I'm Aaron Task joined again by Jim Cramer. Jim, welcome! > 0:09 Good to see you. > 0:10 Thanks for being here. Uh, [there]'s a lot of economic data today, but I want to talk about something else first. Again today we have the misdirection from the futures. The futures probably went up market and as of right now sucks you down again. Is this just because it's the [...] period that we're seeing this? > 0:23 You know, a lot of times when I was short, at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down. Uh, I would, uh, create a, um, a level of activity beforehand that could drive the futures. It doesn't take much money. Uh, similarly if, uh, or if I were long and i would want to make things a little bit rosy, I would, go in and take a bunch of stocks and make sure that they are, they're higher, and, uh, maybe commit five million in capital to do it, and I could affect it. Uh, what you're seeing now is maybe, it probably is bigger market now. Maybe you need ten (10) million in capital to knock the stuff down, but it's a fun game, and it's a lu... lucrative game, and you, you can move it up and then fade it. That's all... often creates a very negative feel. So let's say you take a longer term view intraday and you say 'Listen. I'm going to boost the futures and then when the mo... real sellers come in, real market comes in, they're going to knock it down. It's gonna create a negative e... uhh, negative view. That's a v... strategy very worth doing. When you're va... when you're valued on a day-to-day basis and, I would encourage anyone who's in the hedge fund game to do it, because it's legal, > 1:21 Right > 1:22 and it, uh, it is a very quick way to make money, and very satisfying. > 1:26 Okay. Um, well... > 1:27 By the way, no one else in the world would ever admit that but I can care... > 1:30 That's right, and you can say that here. > 1:31 and I can't. I'm not going to say it on tv. > 1:33 Um, well, on a related note, there's so many more hedge funds today than when you > 1:38 Right. > 1:38 were managing your hedge funds. > 1:39 Right. > 1:39 Do you think that that does that exacerbate the moves or does it make it tougher cuz there's > 1:41 Well, you know, the, uh, the hedge funds are positioned long/short, okay, not just long like mutual funds. So it's really vital these next six (6) days cuz of your payday. You've really got to control the market. You can't let it lift. When you get a research in motion it's really important to use a lot of your firepower to knock that down because it's the fulcrum of the market today. So, let's say I were, uh, I was short, what I would do is I would hit a lot of guys with rim [research in motion]. Now you can't foment. That's a violation of... of... > 2:06 Fermen? > 2:07 Yeah. You can't foment. > 2:08 Foment > 2:09 You can't create a, yourself, an impression that a stock's down, but you do it anyway because the SEC > 2:15 Right > 2:16 doesn't understand it. So you, I mean it's li... that's the only sense that I would say that it is illegal, but a he... a hedge fund that's not up a lot really has to do a lot now to save itself. So, um this is different from what I [was] talking about the beginning where I would be buying the queues and stuff. > 2:29 Right. > 2:29 This is actually just a blatantly illegal, but when you have six (6) days and your company may be in doubt because you're down, I think it's really important to foment, uh, if I were one of these guys. Foment an impression that research in motion isn't any good, because research in motion is the key. > 2:42 [Unintelligible, Race?] > 2:42 So, you know, you would, you would hit this guy and that guy and when you would see an offering, when you see a guy's bidding, you'd wipe out that guy very quickly, and... what I used to do, um, was called, if I wanted to go higher, I would take and bid, take and bid, take and bid, um, and if, um, if I wanted to go lower I'd hit an offer, hit and offer, hit and offer, and I could get a stock like rim for maybe, that might cost me fifteen (15)/twenty (20) million, eh, ante, to knock rim down, but it would be fabulous because it would beleaguer all the moron longs who are also keying on research in motion. > 3:13 Yeah. There's a lot of that going on today with [unintelligible]. > 3:13 So I see, we're seeing... Yeah. We're seeing that. That's, you know, again, when your company's in the survival mode, it's really important to defeat research in motion and get the [Bob] Pisani's of the world, and the people talking about it as if there's something wrong with rim. Then you would call the journal and you get the bozo reporter in research in motion and you would feed that there's a Palm's got a killer, it's gonna give away. These are all the things you must do on a day like today and if you're not doing it maybe you shouldn't be in the game. > 3:36 Okay. Uh, another stock that a lot of people are focused on right now seems to be Apple, [unintelligible]. > 3:40 Yeah. Apple's very important to spread the rumor that, um, that both, uhh, Verizon and Bell... and, uh, ATT have decided they don't like the phone. > 3:47 Right. > 3:47 That's a very easy one to do because, it's also, you want to spread the rumor that it's not gonna be ready for Macworld, and this is very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story and you can claim that it's credible because you spoke to someone at Apple cuz Apple isn't an addi... doesn't issue a statement. > 4:01 Right. They're not gonna comment. They're not gonna say. > 4:02 Right. So it's really an ideal short and I would, again, if I were, uh, short Apple, I would be working very hard today, to get that and the way you would do that is you pick up the phone you call SIX trading desk and you say "Listen. I just got a phone... a contact in Verizon, and he has already said 'Listen. We're not... we're a Lucky G [Lucky Goldstar? LG?] house, eh, we're a Samsung house, we... we... we're a Motorola house. There's no room for Apple. They want too much. That we're not gonna let them in. This is not... We're not gonna let them do what they did to music.'" and, you know, I think that's a very effective way to keep a stock down. > 4:30 Right. Well... > 4:31 I might also, by the way, cuz the stock at eighty-four (84)/eighty-five (85), a little bit of capital, you go buy some January $80 puts, that makes it look like there's going to be something going on. So maybe you, you know, you give Morgan [Stanley] an order to buy a thousand Jan $80 puts, then you go position limit with, uh, you know, uh, you use a 'hat' firm that doesn't know what the heck it's doing. Maybe you go to UBS for puts, and and you just kind of create an image that there's going to be news next week, and that's going to frighten everybody > 4:52 Right. > 4:52 and you go... they all go out and say large put buyer, uh, UBS, then they call [Bob] Pisani. Again, you have to use those guys, and say 'Listen. I'm a bought, you know, I see a big-buyer puts, and I'm told that it's like the it's SEC. You would do that too, um and these are all, uh, f... what's really going on under the market that you don't see. > 5:07 Right, and you don't, and nobody else talks about it except you [unintelligible] > 5:07 but, right, but what what what's important when you're in that hedge fund mode is to not do anything remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view > 5:17 Right. > 5:17 that it's important to create a new truth, to develop a fiction, and, uhm, the the fiction is developed, uhhhh, by almost anybody who's down like two percent (2%) to up six percent (6%) here. You can't take any chances. You can't have the market up any more than it is if you're up six (6), because starting Jan two (2) you'll have all your money come out. > 5:34 Right. > 5:35 So, what would you do if you're in that situation, and you feel like you're desperate, is that you would do these actions. > 5:39 So, you're talking about the mechanics of the market, you know, the > 5:41 We're making the cash much more important than the fundamentals. > 5:43 Oh, well okay, well, but in terms of the fundamentals, you've been writing about how you think > 5:45 Who cares about the fundamentals? Research in motion just blew out the quarter. > 5:48 Right. > 5:48 but look what people can do. I mean that's fabulous thing. It's... great thing about the market is there's nothing to do with the actual stocks. > 5:53 Right. > 5:54 Now, look, over maybe two (2) weeks from now the buyers will come to their senses and realize that everything that they heard was a lie. Uh, but then again Fannie Mae lied about the earnings for six (6) billion dollars. > 6:03 Right and Bristol-Myers [Squibb] lied. Yeah > 6:03 So, you know, there's just... It's just fiction and fiction and fiction and, I think it's important for people to recognize that, the way that the market really works is to... is to have that nexus of... of hit the brokerage houses with a series of orders that can push it down, then leak it to the press, um, and then get it on CNBC. That's also very important, an... and then you have a kind of a vicious cycle down > 6:23 Right. > 6:23 and it's a pretty good game, and it can be play it could pay for percent or two. > 6:27 Right, and then do you get long before Macworld and the expectation that the iPhone is is gonna be good. > 6:30 Well yeah, because you're... you drove it down > 6:31 Right, and then you go back [unintelligible, puts?] to long side > 6:32 you well you've told me that you used the other side > 6:35 Interesting. > 6:35 [Unintelligible, Mah mah?], you know, and there's a case where I would say the January $80 puts can be justified, because after I've knocked the stock down to $80, I can buy a lot of common, and then... play it right in to Macworld where they'll probably introduce the phone and Verizon's gonna take it. > 6:47 Okay. Well, maybe the fundamentals don't matter, but let's talk about the fad a little bit > 6:49 Well, whenever [whatever?], I... what what Wall Street Confidential is > 6:52 Yes. > 6:55 Right. > 6:53 is is not giving in the party [parting?] line. Oh, here's the party [parting?] line by the way, um, the I I I I spoke that, but the phone, I hear the phones are good, and, uhm, Verizon might take it, nnn, as a matter of fact the research in motion sellers, they... I don't think they know what they're talking about, ih... mmp... bmmmmm, you know > 7:07 but you've been writing about the the cell market... you... cell phone market you think is, you don't want to be involved when the [unintelligible] > 7:10 well the problem the problem with the cell phone market frankly is, is that these guys are all killing each other, that, you know. > 7:15 Right. > 7:15 Someone has to take a dive. Motorola and Nokia have to get in a room and just fix price. They've been reluctant to do that because of the various justice departments and because they [unintelligible, actually?] > 7:23 and it's illegal. Right. Yeah. > 7:24 Whoa. That that hasn't stopped a lot of other companies > 7:26 This is, this is true. > 7:27 This seems to be a case where they seem to be directly worried about the authorities. It's almost as if they have a lawyer that... that matters on like say the Bristol-Meyers lawyers and, you know, what eventually happens is the shareholders demand that you get phony lawyers and you sit in the room and it'll happen soon. > 7:43 Real quick, the Fed, the numbers out today weaker than expected, the PC threat > 7:46 Oh, so what. The Fed is obviously got to cut > 7:48 They've got a cut > 7:48 but, [unintelligible, you know?], again, you call re... you call, uhm, the various guys who cover the bonds, and you say dy... 'Ignore the bond action. What's really happened is the Fed is very frightened, about...' and then you gin up the number that they're really frightened about. The Fed is actually, um, desperate to try to figure out, uh, you know, how quickly they have to cut without looking like dopes that they... that they raised it [unintelligible] they... > 8:05 Right, because they've been talking about they're worried about inflation all this past few months > 8:06 Yeah. Y.. You don't want to... You don't want to raise in May and then cut in... in January. It' look like Mexico [...]. I mean this is like a distinguished group of people who went to really good schools. > 8:15 Right. These are smart guys. Absolutely. > 8:16 Yeah. They don't want to look like dopes. > 8:18 Um, but when we were talking earlier in the week, you said you think it'd be some sort of crisis, possibly Ford being a trigger. > 8:23 Well, you know, Ford went and did all that, and you know, they pledged all this investment banking to all these guys so now that they're very reluctant to say negative things, it it makes it much tougher for the Ford story to play out. I mean, the amount of business that Ford has to do. Ford may be the big client of 2007. So, if I were in the corporate finance room, I would say listen to the to the research guy. I said listen, you know, I spoke with [Alan] Mulally. I actually have the inside, the plan works. So then you're the research guy and you said 'Oh man. What do I do? Um, it's bonus time. I'm not going to be a total idiot, but Spitzer's [spelling?] gone to Albany. Let, uh, let let's get back in the game.' > 8:54 Right. Uh > 8:55 I think that's important. > 8:56 Is it possible then, because a year ago at this time a lot of people were saying GM's about to go bankrupt and of course the stock's up fifty (50) some odd percent [unintelligible]. Could Ford be that stock [unintelligible]? > 9:01 Well, there are, you know, they're... they're GM. No, but GM... The difference between Ford and GM was the GM's balance sheet was never really, it turns out wasn't that bad. Ford's balance sheet's pathetic, and you know that because they're willing to screw over the comment for the bonds > 9:14 Right. > 9:14 That that's kind of a.. If if [unintelligible, weren't?] Ford, if this were, um, [unintelligible, Quaca? Qualcomm?] we'd be [unintelligible] [unintelligible, Quaca? Qualcomm?] is desperate, you know, but no, it's Ford. > 9:22 But it's Ford, and it's an American icon, and it's, so, right. > 9:22 So we say it's fine. It... Yeah. I I drove a Ford, you know. I owned a Ford once. > 9:26 and this is our country. Well this has been Jim Cramer [unintelligible] > 9:27 Yeah. Right. You, again, you know, I'm.. what I'm trying to go for in the Wall Street Confidential, and I'm not saying you're [unintelligible, senm ih?] I I have to talk about what it's like at at my hedge fund, okay, because... and what other hedge funds do, because the difference is, is that... if this is an intraday show, and you need to know what's going... what I know is going on > 9:48 Right. > 9:49 Now, we step back. Research in motion was a real blowout quarter. It was a really good quarter, and I was quite surprised how strong the margins were. It looks like the other guys have really dropped out. It's a terrific story. Should it be up six (6)? Yeah. I think so, but, you know, look where we are. It's friday. You kn... you got ss.. five (5) more days to make your quarter. > 10:06 Right. > 10:07 Can you really risk having rim up this much? I don't think you can. > 10:10 Okay, and they're not, and if i'm correct, you're off next week. > 10:13 Yes I am. > 10:13 Okay, and I am as well. So we'll be back in 2007 with more of this. > 10:14 but, you know, right. I'm [...] that we get, that we finish the year at twelve sixty cuz that's, uh, at twelve thousand four hundred and sixty (12,460) because that's what I said with the beginning of the year was. Now, yesterday we came in and we were twenty (20) points away from what I predicted, and you know, I I want to nail it. > 10:28 Do you have a forecast for 2007? > 10:30 Yeah, um, but I'm not... ey it comes [unintelligible] > 10:31 Ih in the [unintelligible] > 10:32 It it's over a series of five (5) days so people have to go to RealMoney.com. > 10:35 Alright peo... mmm, well check it out at RealMoney.com and Jim thanks very much for being here. > 10:38 Thank you. > 10:39 I'm Aaron Task. Stay tuned for more of TheStreet.com tv ---- Other transcripts: - https://dailyrake.ca/2022/11/15/transcript-of-jim-cramer-admitting-to-market-manipulation/ - https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/lmblr3/after_going_viral_multiple_times_over_the_last/gnw9wlt/ by u/lifeaintsohard - http://web.archive.org/web/20210413073235/https://reddit.com/r/GME/comments/mpxem2/jim_cramer_hedge_fund_tactics_interview/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20250310192457/https://reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/mppa3b/infamous_jim_cramer_wall_street_confidential/ by u/mhcase22 (both censored, even the r/Superstonk post, which was censored sometime around four (4) years after it was posted) - https://web.archive.org/web/20090330121802/http:/antisocialmedia.net:80/?page_id=87 - https://uscentrist.org/2008/01/02/gaming-the-system/ - https://thestreet.com/personal-finance/cramers-thestreetcom-tv-recap-games-hedge-funds-play-10329451 (this is not a transcript) - https://harpers.org/archive/2007/06/the-invisible-hand/ (lol paywall) - https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/nj86s0/lucy_komisar_ama_summary_transcript_23/ (partial) ---- Some notes: - Aaron L. Task https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Task - James Joseph Cramer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Pisani#Criticism_by_Jim_Cramer > "In December 2006, Mad Money host Jim Cramer used [Bob] Pisani as an example of an easily manipulated reporter used by hedge fund managers to spread false statements about a company in order to illegally drive the stock price down. Cramer said, "It's really important to get the Pisanis of the world and people talking about it as if there is something wrong...". Cramer later apologized to Pisani." - Published 2006 December 22 11:50 AM EST "Wall St. Confidential: Cramer on Gmaes Hedge Funds Play" - "Why Research in Motion can't rally despite the big quarter and Apple must be held down." (yep, misspelled 'games' cuz the blobgorithm is always watching/listening/parsing) - I think Jim Cramer intentionally mispronounced Qualcomm as Quaca also because of the algorithm - "stell off" instead of "sell off" https://youtu.be/8fTgvIEqYaI?t=19s lol James Mcdonald on Bloomberg - "Super Max 3" instead of "Super Mario 3" at 0:43 in https://youtu.be/kxi807ACxB8?t=0m43s as far back as 1990s - Hat firm is a slang term for a hedge fund, brokerage, or proprietary trading desk used as a front to place orders (in Jim Cramer's example, put options) so the real player isn't identified in the trade blotter. The "hat" refers to the desk "hatting" (i.e., executing) the order on behalf of someone else, a common back-office term for an intermediary that takes the name on the trade. - https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/q9t693/video_of_jim_cramer_talking_about_short_selling/ - https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/tze74a/from_2006_when_jim_cramer_talks_about_hedgefund/

Margins fell due to lack of consolidation for RYM which happen on October 10. 17M royalty payment dropped 5% GM which they noted in the PR.. same as last Q. The net income was a timing issue re: tax provision. With 316M in cash plus RYM consolidation next Q you’re going to see 365M+ in cash. I don’t see it being punished at all.

As a retail investor one may not need to know too much in technical details about the Eclipse projects. Just remember that it is a SDV industry working group formed by 26 world class members, including BMW and Mercedes Benz, GM and Toyota. QNX is a founding member of the group. Most importantly the industry’s highly anticipated Eclipse S-Core 1.0, the first deliverable open-sourced platform launched by the group has the following fact: **Safe Open Vehicle Core (S-CORE) Project:** The Eclipse Foundation's S-CORE project (part of the Eclipse Software Defined Vehicle Working Group) selected **QNX Software Development Platform (SDP) 8.0** as the foundational operating system for its open-source, safety-critical automotive software stack. Does market care about this? Very few people fully understand what this means. But institutional investors know. That’s why we see they choose low volume days and/or any other opportunities to scoop up retail shares at dips. Whoever said BB/QNX growth has been priced in could far off. My question is how could that happened prior the most industry influenced, open-source platform getting launched? Mark the date of Dec. 2, 2026! It should lead a blast of new deals to Alloy Kore afterwords. And QNX based ecosystem will also accelerate its broader expansion! That can definitely help QNX’ physical AI growing process. The conviction of Eclipse’ success will make a lot more BB/QNX’ industrial influence, profoundly. Nothing has been priced in at the current price level. IMO BB at $8 is deeply discounted, and played by hedge funds for their benefits. All IMO.

The investment argument isn't really whether FSD is usable. It's whether FSD is far enough ahead of the competition that it will cause TSLA car sales to sky rocket in future years. And the answer to that is no. Waymo and GM are potentially more advanced. BYD is supposedly good. Tesla FSD is the most available option today but that probably won't be true 5 years from now. Soon the tech may be broadly available in new cars, like Apple Carplay. So go ahead and buy a Tesla today if you have a long highway commute. But I wouldn't buy the stock on that rationale.

The biggest difference between the two is hidden. For AMD any shortfall of client is moved directly over into gains for server -- as Lisa said on the call, the silicon is fungible. For intel any shortfall of client screws them with their fixed cost fab business. That is evidenced by the horrific Q4 GM guide going down when it should have gone up on better product mix.

Fair enough, perhaps I am missing something from the call (I did listen to it). Can you summarize what management said that you think explains the gross-margin difference? I understand the product-ramp argument, and I agree that early ramps carry higher costs. But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. AMD reported 56% non-GAAP GM and is guiding roughly 56% next quarter despite very strong demand and rapidly increasing Data Center revenue. My question is really about the *relative* margin structure versus Nvidia. Even after accounting for ramp costs, shouldn't a persistent and substantial margin gap tell us something about relative pricing power and/or product differentiation? I'm genuinely interested in the counterargument: **do you believe AMD currently has comparable pricing power to Nvidia in AI accelerators? If not, what explains the margin gap other than pricing power and competitiveness?** That's not a bearish "scenario" I'm dreaming up. It's exactly the question I'm trying to understand. What I looking for long term is that AMDs gross margins increasing and Nvidia's coming down. To me, that would be a clear signal that AMD is competitive. Right now, I am not seeing that.

**Jeff Pu:** *📈AMD - Raised Server CPU and AI Outlook Offsets PC Softness* **•Maintain Buy, TP $720** •3Q26: Revenue $13.38bn (+45% YoY) vs. guidance $13bn, consensus $13.1bn, our estimate $13.3bn. Non-GAAP EPS $2.1 (+74% YoY) vs. consensus $1.95. GM 56%. Datacenter $8.5bn (+97% YoY). •4Q26 guidance: $17bn ±3% (+66% YoY, \~+27% QoQ, GM \~55%) vs. Bloomberg consensus $16.2bn, Buy-side $16.5–17.0bn, our estimate $17.6bn. Better than feared post-Intel print. •Raised 2027: total revenue >80% YoY; server CPU now expected to double YoY (our estimate of +109%) datacenter AI “significantly more than double.” •Key drivers: MI450/Helios ramp (4Q26/1Q27), Venice CPU, secured wafer/substrate/packaging/memory supply, agentic AI demand, and improving TSMC N2 wafer availability.

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

I think it’s a big mistake to separate the EV makers from regular auto. There is really no reason to assume EVs will have higher margins than ICE. Even tesla has piss poor margins now, I hardly think the future looks bright for Rivian as they are already valued extremely high for an automaker. You say that Rivian is doing something special - but what exactly? GM has cruises technology which actually drove driverless safely for 5 million miles in SF before they had their unfortunate incident. GM has like 10 EVs, and has the scale to be profitable on them.

She said to use q4 GM as guide for 2027.

Jean just told him to F off, I'm not giving you GM%

Quick summary of the numbers: - Revenue: $13.38B (+45% YoY), vs ~$13.09B expected - Adj. EPS: $2.09, vs ~$1.95 - Data center: ~$8.5B (+97% YoY) - Q4 guide: ~$17B ±3%, vs ~$16.2B consensus - Q4 non-GAAP GM guide: ~55% After last quarter's beat-and-drop on margins, the Q4 guide is doing the work this time. Anyone catch MI450 / Helios timing on the call?

For the Dow specifically, delisted data is the smaller half of the problem. The bigger survivorship bias is running your model on today's 30 names across all 20 years. What I'd do: 1. Build a membership table first. Wikipedia's "Historical components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average" lists every add and removal with dates, and it's only a few dozen changes since 2005. Your universe on any date is whoever was in the index that day. 2. Most removed names never went away. They were swapped out but kept trading, so Yahoo still has them under the same ticker. Only a handful truly disappeared through bankruptcy, takeover or merger (old GM in 2009 is the classic one), and that's where Yahoo has nothing. 3. Fill those gaps from a source that keeps delisted tickers, like Norgate, Sharadar on Nasdaq Data Link, or EODHD. For a handful of symbols you may only need one month of a paid plan. With weekly rebalancing that's a weekend project, not a full security master. If the 22% survives on point-in-time membership, it's worth taking seriously.

I think the reason why Intel tanked is the about 600-800 bps of unexplained GM destruction from Q3 to Q4 (I'm already accounting for the 200bps explosion). It should have continued the Q2 trend and gone up not down with the continued revenue shift towards server That can pretty much can only be explained by having your own fabs (or at least owning Intel fabs) is a really bad thing, and certainly not the big advantage that people had been touting.