GM
General Motors Company
stock NYSE

1000%. Most companies have guidelines about not posting things on social media online about the company, especially regarding things about about internal operations, or that you're ALONE IN THE STORE BY YOURSELF AT NIGHT! Quite honestly, the dude's least of his worries is getting fired if he gets doxxed, he should be more concerned about ending up with a gun in his face and getting robbed.
And that's not to mention anything about putting his manager out on blast in his first week. I don't know why this dude thinks he should be a GM, he can't even be a no. 2 for an hour without fucking up royally. And that was just in like the first minute of the video. If that were my store and I figured out this fucking mouth breather was angling for my job while breaking all kinds of policy, he's either getting shit canned or his hours cut to the point he doesn't bother showing up anymore.

Copy pasted from another post. My LAC analysis. 
It's green energy but still energy. Pre-revenue yes but you have to look at the bigger picture. Firstly the commodity, lithium, is critical to national security and the project is backed by $3B in funding from DOE, GM, and private equity. Trump likes the project so much he even had his government take an ownership stake in it. I think Trump has messed up badly with the Iran war and will cause some sort of energy crisis when the reserves can no loger suppress the price of oil. This will hand Democrats the next election and they'll preach about diversifying and innovation of energy, just like last time. Regardless of if that actually happens or not, LAC will still go through a re-rate next year as construction ends in 2027 and commercial production begins 2028. All miners go through it, it is verifiable data and the gains are usually between 100-250% as a reward for the project being majorly derisked and start of revenues. Insert the Democrats in office and most likely this is 300-500% by 2030. The play here is simply to wait for the big money to come to you instead of chasing it. It's the same playbook from TNZ that changed my life. You just have to think ahead a little and be patient, that's it.

Let the Chinese cars in, and Ford, GM and Stellantis might finally think about spending money and making good cars.

Not necessarily. Charts have a place, but it’s limited.
How is Ford likely to perform?. If you look at the chart, you might say sideways. And you may be right in the short term. However, you look beyond trends and look at the actual business.
Ford energy and their software integration is likely to produce significant cash flow at higher margins than their legacy auto segments. Such that we can reasonably expect at least $3 EPS in 2030. Assuming they trade at just their 20 year average P/E of 6x, that’s $18/share. That’s a 40% gain in five years. Add the 4.5% dividend yield, that gives us over 55% assuming no dividend hikes. That’s our base case.
However. If we compare to GM trading at 24-43x earnings following their recovery we get a lot more. At the low end of 23x, that’s $69/share.
Me, I’m projecting $25-$30. Still good for >100% total return. Charts don’t tell you any of that.

**My Thesis: $TSLA is uniquely positioned to gain market share during this high energy inflation**
With all the negative sentiment surrounding high interest rates, sticky inflation, and tightening auto credit, many are writing off the automotive sector as a whole. However, looking at the change in consumer behavior and manufacturing costs, I believe Tesla remains uniquely positioned to capture significant market share in the current environment.

While high interest rates make auto loans more expensive, elevated gas price volatility directly changes the Total Cost of Ownership.
When gas prices spike, monthly operating expenses become a primary pain point for consumers. With the aggressive price cuts over the past year models like the Model 3 and Model Y have reached near-price-parity with popular midsize ICE vehicles
ICE Midsize Sedan: $31,000 purchase price | $2,100+ annual fuel cost
Tesla Model 3: $35,000 post-credit | $550 annual home charging cost
Theres also a massive diesel shortage happening right now, this puts Tesla in a prime position to ramp up Semi truck production.
**Tesla isnt just an auto manufacturer, their non auto sectors have high growth**

Energy Generation and Storage: Megapack deployments are expanding rapidly as utilities build out grid storage. Tesla Energy represents a high-margin revenue stream that operates independently of consumer auto credit conditions.
Charging Infrastructure: By opening the Supercharger network to Ford, GM, Rivian, and others, Tesla has positioned itself as the utility toll-booth provider for North American EV charging.
Full Self-Driving & AI Compute: The fleet of millions of vehicles continuously gathers real-world data to train vision-based autonomous models. Any future monetization whether through software subscriptions, robotaxi deployment, or third-party licensing carries high software gross margins.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Bottom line, their earnings the next few quarters are going to be great. The Optimus and CyberCab are a story for another day.
My price target is $425 by the end of the year.

GM sales are down in China as of late and Chevy has completely exited their market this year. It's really just Buick carrying them there, along with some Cadillac sales.

I mean it's not like they don't, but for Ford and GM majority of their revenue and profits are still US based. For Stellantis, China is already started to creep in their European market, so not long until they start feeling the brunt. But in general for these three companies ex-North American markets are looking bleak in near and long future.

You think Tesla sells well and GM doesn’t in China?
Lol.

Ford and GM don’t have international markets? Yes they do. In fact Ford sells Chinese produced cars in the US right now.

Dario Amodei has been recently promoting a theory called "centuar chess": [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/were-centaur-era-ai-mickey-mellen-8wsse/](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/were-centaur-era-ai-mickey-mellen-8wsse/)
The story goes like this. After Garry Kasparov's bitter defeat by deepblue, he came up with the idea of human working together with the engine to play chess, with the goal being to combine human GM's tactical vision with engine's ability to calculate multiple steps ahead. And indeed, for a few years, AI+human will win against AI alone. So a GM with an engine represented the best chess possible at the time and there were even tournaments called "advanced chess". But eventually engine has gotten so good that human input basically become pointless, to the point where any human override/inputs will make the game suboptimal.
So Dario's point is that we are in the centuar phase of AI where AI makes human more productive, by letting them move upwards to higher levels of abstractions. In fact, because firms can clear their backlog faster and make a lot of potential unexplored projects or ideas explorable at cheaper overall cost, it actually increased demand for human employees because of overall productivity increase. Dario's prediction is then that, extrapolating from chess, this phase will likely be short-lived and the end game will be mass unemployment of knowledge workers.
This story shook me because it echos a lot of what is happening in our industry. QRs nowadays directs AI to work on higher level ideas, sanity check AI proposals, and overall is able to deliver better results than AI alone. AI has gotten a lot better in the past year and we found ourselves move upwards in the abstraction ladder: from having to double check code line by line to checking just top-line methodology and probing it with sanity checks. Yet we have not seen big drop in the pace of hiring (it has in fact increased at many places). We have also seen in mathematics ---a middle ground between chess and quant in terms of "fuzziness"--- where current consumer grade AI makes mathematicians much more productive by taking over details of writing the lemmas but still needed human guidance to really make a progress on hard research grade questions. There were actually quite a bit of optimism not so long ago from people like terry tao on the "bright future" of human and AI working together. Yet the newest generation of AI (OpenAI's internal model) is already able to solve problems better than any living mathematicians, rendering their existence moot as far as problem solving is concerned. It happens so fast: the exit from centuar phase for check is almost like a phase transition over a course of several weeks.
At this point, I'm very concerned about the future of the quant profession. I think things like alpha research may be going to disappear in a year or two or even months, except we will not have teaching/understanding/knowledge-preservation to fall back on. Will it be a bloodbath?

I think a lot of people are missing the broader point here. This isn't simply “China cheats, therefore Chinese cars are cheap.”
Yes, China has heavily supported its auto and battery industries. But industrial policy isn't uniquely Chinese. The US has protected and subsidized its own auto industry too, including the interventions during the 2008–09 crisis and, much more recently, huge incentives for EV and battery manufacturing.
The bigger question is what automakers did with that protection and investment.
Detroit spent years concentrating on high-margin pickups and large SUVs while affordable cars gradually disappeared from their lineups. Then EVs arrived and many manufacturers tried to repeat essentially the same strategy: large, expensive vehicles with large batteries and high margins. That left a huge opening at the affordable end of the market.
Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers invested aggressively in batteries, electric platforms, vertical integration, manufacturing scale and smaller EVs. You don't have to agree with Chinese industrial policy to recognize that this created real technological and manufacturing capabilities. Reducing all of that to “cheating” doesn't explain the product gap.
The quality argument is also becoming increasingly difficult to make as a blanket statement. GM itself has spent decades working with SAIC in China, and SAIC-GM-Wuling has become a major part of GM's Chinese operations. Chinese manufacturers aren't simply producing primitive cheap cars anymore.
Brazil is particularly interesting because we can actually watch this competition happening in an open market. BYD's Dolphin Mini and Dolphin compete directly against cars from Chevrolet, Fiat, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Toyota and others. Consumers aren't being forced to buy them. They're comparing purchase price, equipment, performance, warranty and operating costs.
And now the traditional manufacturers themselves are reacting. GM is bringing products developed through its Chinese partnerships, Stellantis is using Leapmotor technology and products, and other legacy manufacturers are developing cheaper EVs because they know this segment cannot simply be abandoned.
So tariffs can keep Chinese-built EVs out of the US market, but they don't solve the underlying product problem. If Detroit wants to remain competitive globally, eventually it has to build affordable vehicles that people actually want to buy at competitive prices.
You can criticize Chinese subsidies without pretending that every competitive advantage Chinese manufacturers have today comes from “cheating.” Those are two very different arguments.

I don’t hold it. But I’ve been watching it very powerfully.
Their energy pivot is interesting. If the car industry only remains stable, I could see a rise to $20+ by 2029/2030.
What concerns me longer term is I believe autonomous vehicles will change individual car ownership. I can see around 30% of the population relying on services such as Uber for AV transportation by 2035-2040 in lieu of purchasing a vehicle. Right now Ford appears behind other legacy giants like VW, Mercedes, Toyota, Hyundai, and GM right now.
But Ford and GM’s development of sodium batteries is very exciting. Sodium is obviously more abundant and cheaper than lithium. Whichever one of them takes the lead will likely do well even if they fall behind in AV development.

This is the biggest thing, imo. They don't have the GM to really afford to wait out the shot clock of your garden leave, unless you're going to be locked in for a longer performance period.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2026/09/17/general-motors-is-supplying-lockheed-martin-with-patriot-missile-parts/
GM Defense is significantly re-engaging with the U.S. defense sector, mirroring its crucial role in WWII. The company recently delivered mission-critical components to Lockheed Martin for the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptor program. This remarkable 22-day turnaround, achieved less than a month after contract signing, highlights GM's precision-fabrication expertise and manufacturing scale. This rapid production is vital for Lockheed Martin's efforts to accelerate missile output and replenish U.S. stockpiles, which have been depleted by conflicts in Ukraine and with Iran. Both firms plan to expand their collaboration, applying commercial practices to other munition programs. GM Defense is also developing a prototype for the U.S. Army's Heavy Infantry Squad Vehicle program.

That's actually very close to what makes me ask this question in the first place.
I'm from Brazil, and we're seeing another version of this experiment here. Chinese automakers are competing directly with the established brands, and they're putting a lot of pressure on the market through price, equipment and electrification.
But here's the part I find interesting: keeping those companies out of the US doesn't protect Detroit from that competition everywhere else.
GM, Ford and Stellantis have been trying to compete in Latin America for decades. Ford even stopped manufacturing vehicles in Brazil in 2021, long before the current wave of Chinese EV competition here. So the difficulties of American automakers in this region can't simply be blamed on Chinese companies.
Now they have another problem: BYD, GWM and other Chinese manufacturers are expanding in markets where American, European, Japanese and Korean brands already compete.
That's why I'm not convinced that keeping Chinese cars out necessarily makes Detroit stronger in the long run. It may protect the extremely profitable US market, but GM, Ford and Stellantis still have to face those manufacturers in Mexico, Brazil and the rest of the world.
And your Mexico example is especially interesting for that reason. If American automakers increasingly depend on protected or particularly profitable segments at home while losing ground in competitive segments abroad, protection may preserve their US business without actually solving the underlying competitiveness problem.
That's the distinction I'm trying to make: keeping Detroit profitable in America and making Detroit globally competitive aren't necessarily the same thing.

Yes. Where my family is from in Mexico the vast majority of people switched to Chinese cars in general because they are cheaper. GM, Ford, and Stellantis are basically extinct now except for their trucks used by the government or businesses. If you introduce Chinese cars in the US, you’d cause Detroit to go bankrupt…again

Asian (Han Chinese). I am making my son the youngest quant ever, preferably before 10. Pathway:
Before sex: find a high IQ Asian woman with no chronic diseases
Before birth: genetically modify the embryo, then use fengshui to find a good date to be born, and let my son to be born at a target hospital (Mayo Clinic/PUMCH/Gleneagles HK/London St Thomas)
3 mo: arithmetic (at least 4 digit multiplication in head)
6 mo: middle school math (algebra and so on)
1 y: highschool math (pre-calc)
2 y: calculus, stats, linear algebra
3 y: multivar calc, ODE, regression analysis, analysis. Qualify for AMC and AIME
4 y: real analysis, stochastic calc, PDE. Qualify for national MO training
5 y: IMO (Gold, silver, or disownment). Start to grind on codeforces, should reach Expert/GM within 1 year
6 y: IOI/IOL (side quest). Networking with recruiters and quants, win IQC and IMC Prosperity
7 y: quant discovery days, to be fast tracked for internships
8 y: intern at a large prop shop as QT, get return offer
9 y: QT with 6 figure bonus. Done
Throughout his life he is to be homeschooled and he won't have insta/tiktok/threads. Twitter is only for understanding market sentiment for quant trading. I will also use conditioning to educate him and impose corporal punishment if he underperforms.
How can I optimise the schedule so that he can become a quant ASAP? Any idea is welcome!
/s

Out of all companies GM is by far the worst at any innovations and any logical decisions.

Ford and GM are just going to become the new Lada and Aurus Motors. What? You haven't heard of these prestigious Soviet car brands? Well then, that's your loss. In Soviet Russia, car drives you!

That's a much more reasonable concern than simply saying “Chinese car = spy device.”
Connected vehicles absolutely create privacy and national-security questions. Cameras, GPS, cellular connectivity, driver-assistance systems and other sensors can generate enormous amounts of data, and I understand why the US would want strict rules governing where that data goes and who can remotely access the vehicle.
But I don't think this is inherently a Chinese-car problem. It's a connected-car problem.
The FTC has already taken action against GM and OnStar over allegations involving the collection and sale of precise geolocation and driving-behavior data from millions of American vehicles. So American cars can create serious data-privacy problems too.
The important distinction, in my view, is between regulating the data and simply banning the product because of its nationality. If a Chinese automaker wants to sell cars in a country, require local data storage where appropriate, cybersecurity audits, restrictions on remote access, transparency about what the cameras and sensors collect, and compliance with that country's privacy laws.
If a particular manufacturer can't comply with those requirements, then that's a concrete security problem. But “this car has cameras and LiDAR, therefore Beijing is mapping everything within 100 feet of it” requires evidence of what is actually being collected, transmitted and accessed.
Otherwise we'd have to ask the same privacy questions about every highly connected vehicle on the road, regardless of whether the badge says BYD, GM, Ford, Tesla or something else.