GM
General Motors Company
stock NYSE

I did that with GM and lost it all

The whole GM thing gave me the impression he’s just genuinely stupid. That’s why he’s depressed now. His two brain cells are frantically rubbing together but can’t make sense of the outcome.
I personally wouldnt dilute narcissism to this dork but i would equally avoid as the wake of stupidity can end up just as traumatic to deal with.

LAC. US based Lithium mine starting up in late 27 early 28. Good growth for the next 10 years on it. The mine is backed by DOE and GM.

>he seems like a nice, genuine person
Yes, that's entirely possible. And i'm not diagnosing him as a narcissist because that's outside of my area of expertise, but i do know that narcissists are often charming, nice, disarming people but at their core they cannot introspect without a great deal of effort and they have a tendency to externalize all flaws.
His "I know how to do this better than those who have been doing it for years" and grandiose, "I should be a GM" approaches are something a narcissist would think and vocalize.
The problem with narcissists is that you cannot fix them. They have to recognize it in themselves and accept their own (very human, very normal) flaws. Until then, the best thing you can do is avoid building a relationship with them.

Oh, ok. Just a couple of questions come to mind. In your example of someone wanting to sell AAPL at 300 and there wasn't already an order to buy sitting at 300, then you say a market maker will step in and buy it from you at 300. But my understanding is that market makers earn their profits from the bid/ask spread (ie, they are willing to sell a little above the last trade and willing to buy a little below the last trade and thus earn the spread) So if a market maker hit your offer at 300, wouldn't that go against his profit incentive? Wouldn't he be better off bidding 299 and wait for you to come to him? The other question is about hedge funds. You imply that hedge funds are not speculators. My understanding is that many decades ago when hedge funds first started they were called hedge funds because they would buy one stock and sell another related stock (maybe buy Ford, sell GM) in an attempt to profit from the change in relative prices. However, these days hedge funds have largely abandoned that model (but the name still sticks) and instead they make large directional bets, which ofc would make them speculators. Am I wrong about that?

Mercedes, Volkswagen, Hyundai, GM, Rivian, and Toyota are already bothering with it. Mercedes and VW launch this year.
Thing is, auto manufacturing is a very unprofitable industry. Most go bankrupt and Waymo/Tesla are particularly vulnerable. All trillion dollar companies have large graveyards of failed ventures. Google may have the most.
Waymo doesn’t need to risk manufacturing cars. Their cars are basically $120k corollas. All they need to do to be successful is sell their AV tech to companies who can efficiently manufacture cars. That’s where I see their real growth: selling it to companies like Ford and Honda who can already efficiently build cars people want but are behind developing AV tech.
Similarly, Waymo runs the risk of struggling building the worldwide network to compete with Uber. It’s harder than it looks. Ask Amazon. They’ve tried several times.
I always compare Uber to Netflix when they first started offering streaming. From 2010-2020 everyone had the exact same bear arguments that Disney/Paramount/HBO will launch their own streaming service, eat their content and subscribers. While that did happen, it also expanded the TAM for streaming, leading Netflix to one of the best decades of all time.
Using JP Morgan’s projections that the ride hailing industry will hit $2-$4T by 2040 (essentially eating 30% of new car sales). With a TAM of $2T, even if we assume Uber’s market share falls similarly to Netflix, from 75% to around 40%, that’s still $800B in annual revenue. Assume they only keep their currently depressed sales multiple of 3x, that’s a $2.4T MC. Assume extreme 30% dilution, that’s still $904 a share.
That’s without getting into UberEats, which is their fastest growing and most profitable segment, and will take majority market share with their acquisition of Delivery Hero. Nor is it getting into UberFreight or their advertising segment.
It is, in my opinion, the best position to build right now.

Oh I see, the automakers. Ford didn't get bail out by USA, so I don't think Canada did too. Ford was more resistant than GM and Chrysler 

They can be bailed out, but existing shareholders would be wiped out. Look at GM during the 08 crisis. Those two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Uber is my favorite stock. I think everyone has it all wrong. AV’s aren’t a threat. They’re an opportunity. Market thinks Waymo and Tesla are the only ones in autonomy. They ignore Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai launching in the next 12 months. GM, Toyota, Rivian will likely within 24 months. Ford, Nissan, Honda will probably follow by 2030.
Waymo pays $70k-$200k per vehicle. I don’t see them being a long term auto manufacturer. I see them selling their tech to auto manufacturers.
Do you think all these car manufacturers are going to pay $4B to launch their own networking platform? Even if they do, do you think people will keep 4-6 different AV apps? I don’t think so. I think they all go to Uber.
That leaves Tesla, which for some reason insists on being a stand alone provider. If everyone else is on Uber, Tesla will only be able to operate in a handful of cities.
I don’t like Tesla’s chances of launching their own network. Their best bet is to buy out Lyft and partner with other OEM’s like Uber is doing to meet demand. Even then, I don’t think they can be a significant threat.

Ford, GM, and Chrysler are almost 1/3 of Cleveland Cliffs client base, vote with your wallet.

MU just printed $54.2B revenue at 87% GM, guided $61.5B next quarter, says Q1 is the margin floor, supply stays tight through 2028, and most 2027 HBM is already locked at higher prices. Market calls peak cycle; I call $MU still wildly underpriced.
See you at 2,000. Don’t be a panican.

Where did you get 87% GM?

This is the first quarter with Thornhill and an additional better line. Every quarter until now was about the single line, managing cash burn and proving the concept. If they had been churning out batteries at a higher rate and lower margins they would have caused more dilution. Cash burn can reduce significantly in these upcoming quarters, and they have the cash to get to GM profitability if they meet their target.

solid writeup, the Line 2 ramp masking the GM improvement in Q2 is the part most people sleeping on this are missing. the real risk isn't the thesis, it's getting chopped up on the Line 1 move to Thornhill in Q4 if Line 2 stutters at higher utilizations before then. what's your exit plan if the preliminaries don't drop within that 9-15 day window this time?

If you've heard of EOSE before, it's probably from the run up that happened this time last year and the subsequent debacle that has led to a 80% drawdown, worst drawdown since the 5.60 - 0.60 one after the DoE conditional agreement in 2023. They make non-flammable stationary batteries that can but don't necessarily have to compete with Li-ion (see [https://investors.eose.com/news-releases/news-release-details/mn8-energy-google-and-eos-energy-enterprises-bring-advanced](https://investors.eose.com/news-releases/news-release-details/mn8-energy-google-and-eos-energy-enterprises-bring-advanced) ), different use cases but can operate in that range. There is a longer, extended time frame thesis but I will do my best to keep the info relevant to the earnings play.
Chart:
Potential triple bottom / inverse head and shoulders here on weekly/daily.
Earnings:
EOSE has begun a trend of releasing preliminaries this year after the Q4 2026 debacle. The massive sell off was due to expectations being missed after reaffirming guidance 35 days into Q4. They have since been in the penalty box; market has lost trust (or so it seems) and needs execution and fundamentals to show up before it can be rebuilt. It seems that they have been releasing preliminaries to reconcile with this, Q1 preliminaries released 9 days after Q end, Q2 released 15 days after Q end.
Risk/reward:
This environment creates a potentially asymmetric trade, with the market discounting EOSE's execution due to Q4 2025. It is psychologically scarring to endure these drawdowns or be down 50% on an earnings play, the damage is immense. And if that's all you know about the company you will disregard it, and lose trust in management and what they say. But the last 2 quarters they have been meeting their own timelines; accurate about DOE Tranche for Line 2 coming out, Q1 revenue being similar to Q4, Subassemblies (crucial part of line design that unlocks nameplate capacity of 2GwH, important for getting to margin profitability) coming online in July like they said for Line 2. Quote from Q2 call:

"The H2 exceeds the H1, the Q4 is higher than the third. The bottom of the range takes roughly $50 million of H2 growth over the H1. That is just maintaining the run rate that we exited June with on revenue already secured through backlog and Frontier Power USA."
The difference is that in Q4 2025 they had to TRIPLE Q3 2025 revenue to meet guidance on first generation automation and they were a company learning to scale; they had supplier issues and missing redundancies to guarantee line function if something went wrong. For 2026, all they have to do is continue the run rate they already proved they could do. But the interesting part is that in June Line 2 started producing. It is a more efficient and better designed line in a new manufacturing building that isn't 100 years old (like where Line 1 is). Line 2 contributed 1% of Q2 2026 output, and adjusted gross margin was -62%, while revenue and cube shipments were up around 20% QoQ. Line 2 barely coming online and producing was masking the improvement in GM.
It is interesting that they clarified that it is the run rate they EXITED June with as well, saying that the end of June was higher than the beginning, but not because of Line 2 (1% total contribution). So Q3 is set up to have a higher initial run rate from the beginning AND Line 2 ramping.
Another quote from Q2 call:
"Hey, Chris. Lower end is basically continue the run rate of June throughout the rest of the year to get to the 300. The higher end of that is to not so much get line one up and running in Thorn Hill, but to get Thorn Hill the full 24/7 operation by the time we get into the end of the Q4."
It sounds like the higher end of guidance is contingent on them getting capacity online, not more orders.
Quote from Q2 call:
"Combined, these initiatives provide what we believe is a clear path to over 72 points of adjusted gross margin improvement over the next 12 months, assuming we execute our plan and **achieve expected production volumes."**
What would expected production volumes be? The amount needed to meet the low end of guidance one could assume, which is the run rate they exited June with.
https://preview.redd.it/ld5pzxg5wksh1.png?width=2048&format=png&auto=webp&s=edcb49bc82e23dc0bd32253c3f7758ebce0a9468
"Targeting Q4 26 adjusted gross profit positive exit run rate."
Putting it all together, they have a path to gross profit positive that could happen 13 weeks from now. It sounds like it is based off the expected production volumes, which I am understanding as what is needed to make the low end of guidance which is $300m, which is the run rate they exited June with. But the run rate for Q3 should be higher, because they are carrying that higher run rate from Line 1 (which Q2 only had at the end of June) for all of Q3, while Line 2 ramps up to 2 shifts. And "Q4 is higher than the third." Which makes $300m sound very conservative, in line with the general tone of this year after the Q4 2025 debacle. The last 3 earnings calls have been different in tone, less promises and "selling of the future" and just a more conservative, potentially sandbagging tone.
The risk here is that they are moving Line 1 to Thornhill to upgrade it (inherently inefficient design, was designed to fit the building of Turtle Creek, not for efficiency) so it's congruent with Line 2 (and future lines) in Q4 and Line 2 is going to have to carry the Q4 production after the move. No exact timeline on when in Q4 the move will happen. I don't imagine them moving until they are confident in Line 2. But to me, Line 2 is just a more efficient line 1 with built in redundancies (so Q4 doesn't happen again), it isn't proven yet at higher utilizations, but the general concept of the lines producing has been with Line 1.
To reach $325m (middle of guidance), H2 needs to be $199.3m. If Q4 is only **5% larger than Q3**, you'd need approximately:
**Q3: $97.2M**
**Q4: $102.1M**
For that Q3 growth, you'd need a 41.2% rise in revenue. Revenue grew from Q1/Q2 by around 20%, without an extra, more efficient line ramping (and Line 1 run rate was higher at end of Q2 than the rest of the quarter).
And $325m I assume is above the **"expected production volumes"** used to calculate the path to GM profitability, so at 325m the numbers are improving much more rapidly than expected.
From Q1 call:
"a 17% sequential increase in cube output accompanied by an 18% improvement in gross loss, approximately $10M".
Now this wasn't replicated in Q2 because of poor overhead absorption of an early Line 2 producing, but it shows the operating leverage they have.
Macro environment:
It's clear that the AI race isn't stopping, and the constraining item could very well be electricity. Batteries stop curtailment and allow the grid to be more efficient. Energy prices are rising with the current geopolitical events. Winter is coming and for many states, the grid performing could be a matter of life and death. On August 26th, the DoE implemented a major foreign battery ban. EOSE is domestically manufactured and 91% domestically sourced.
Recent partnerships for with Department of War for Golden Dome and the Army [https://www.frontierpowerusa.com/frontier-power-usa-selected-to-advance-energy-resilience-project-at-tobyhanna-army-depot/](https://www.frontierpowerusa.com/frontier-power-usa-selected-to-advance-energy-resilience-project-at-tobyhanna-army-depot/)
[https://investors.eose.com/news-releases/news-release-details/eos-energy-enterprises-selected-deliver-mission-ready-power](https://investors.eose.com/news-releases/news-release-details/eos-energy-enterprises-selected-deliver-mission-ready-power)
If Q3 proves margins coming down with all these tailwinds, a re-rate is possible. EOSE could become a darling in the BESS/LDES space, perception can change fast because quarters of progress have been largely ignored by the market while they approach a potential inflection point in the company by scaling at a time where the TAM is absolutely massive and necessary for the grid, AI, national defense, and to lower consumers energy costs. Also the timing of Line 2 coming online and Line 1 becoming fully ramped in Q2 creates a situation where Q3 can show massive improvement in GM.
nfa/dyor