General Motors CompanyGMNYSE
GM smashes expectations and guides toward a strong 2023 https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/31/general-motors-gm-earnings-q4-2022.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
> They may very well be there but other companies with more cash and resources are also working on it, both traditional tech and car manufacturers and their advantage would be minimal time even if it happens.
That's my full quote.
So lets talk cash - Tesla has $16B in cash on hand in their latest quarterly street disclosure
Now let's talk about companies with more cash (and better engineering programs) working on autonomous car tech:
Apple - Who has $27B in cash, and nearly $100B in cash equivilents
Google not only has a working, functioning example of the technology in Waymo taxis but they also have $30B in cash on hand
[General Motors] (https://www.gm.com/commitments/path-to-autonomous) is also working on autonmous technology and they have $20B in cash on hand
Ford is also working on self driving and they have $20B in cash on hand
Toyota is also working on autonmous vehicles and they have $49B USD in cash on hand
Speaking of VW Group and Diamler they also have more cash on hand than tesla
I guess what Im saying is you're a Grade A Prime USDA dumb fucking cunt.
I like $GM 70c 3/19
GM owns 70% of Cruise, autonomous vehicle technology company that launched driverless taxi service in SF in Dec 2020 source: SF Chronicle
GM’s JV in China now has the best selling EV in China, the Hongguang Mini, outselling Tesla in Q3-20 Source:WSJ
January 2020, GM announces self-driving partnership with Microsoft who joins $2bn investment round in Cruise, values Cruise at $30bn
January 2020, Cruise hired former Delta COO as it readies for commercialization
GM to unveil new Electric Utility Vehicle on February 14, 2021, it will be the first GM EV to have Super Cruise driver assist
Super Cruise driver assist tech outperformed Tesla Autopilot in review by Consumer Reports Source: Consumer Reports
In Dec 2019, GM launched a JV with LG Chem (supplier to Tesla) to build next generation batteries Source: GM
MacRumors says Apple will collaborate with Hyundai on its first Apple Car model (deal is off according to WSJ) and if things go well, Apple could work with General Motors and European manufacturer PSA for subsequent models, according to noted Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo
GM trades at less than 1x revenue, less than 10x forward PE, sold approximately 5 times more vehicles than Tesla in 2020, and also outsold Ford in full size trucks
Price targets keep getting raised. Street high is $80 by Adam Jonas at Morgan Stanley. Here he is explaining the call on CNBC. His 12-month PT includes a (absurd, imo) discount for risk.
Dan Ives, (big dick) tech industry analyst at Wedbush, has recently started following GM and mentions them in same conversation as Tesla
Super Bowl ad with Will Ferrel was legit funny
I bought BB pre GME hype, and haven't touched any of it throughout the ups and downs of the past couple weeks, so I guess I'm more in it for the long haul.
But one factor that I haven't totally convinced myself on is that QNX will be in every car moving forwards. I'm a little worried about the fact that Google just announced the partnership with Ford to have them run Android Auto. And in 2019, GM announced that all cars starting 2021 would be running Android Auto.
I've read all the DD's about how blackberry is a security company and so their platform should be the most secure, and the argument that as Google and Apple develop their own autonomous vehicles, more automotive companies might choose to go with a neutral party. Then there's also the point that the new CEO of Amazon, Andy Jassy, who starts in Q3 is coming from AWS and formed the partnership with BB.
Thoughts? Just trying to figure out if I should buy more now while its dipped again.
(Also this is my first comment, I joined a bunch of investment subs a few weeks ago, right before everything took off, and have been lurking to learn as much as I can. But this seems like a good community to actually have some discussions in)
Owner satisfaction means one thing when your owners are attention-seeking owners who can afford to buy a niche appeal car that randomly falls apart under highway speeds, spends enormous amounts of time in repair/maintenance and has peculiarly high service costs. Owner satisfaction means another thing when your owners can't afford a car that falls apart and constantly needs very expensive work. Most people can't afford a car that isn't reliable, and so the possible pool of Tesla owners in the US is actually quite small, maybe on par with the number of people who like to have vintage British convertibles that have constant repair issues, because they look really cool and are fun to drive. Like vintage British convertible cars, Teslas also pose problems in terms of safety due to the poor build quality and engineering design issues that keep coming up.
You can't take "owner satisfaction" out of context from which kind of owners would actually buy a Tesla (people who can blow money on a very unreliable, niche car) and which kind of owner would never buy one (most people).
I'm not denying that there's a cult of Tesla and that the owners love their cars. I'm just saying that the biggest pool of customers -- people who have a practical need for effective and cost effective transportation -- won't be buying Teslas.
Also, if you review my post, I didn't say that Tesla's sales didn't grow. The demand for EV's is growing and Tesla's sales are increasing in that environment. But you don't seem to recognize the meaning of the term "market share". It's how much of the EV market pie Tesla owns that is the market share. And Tesla's first-in advantage is diminishing as it's falling behind other car makers who bring better quality of design and build, including Audi.
> Tesla’s TSLA, 5.58% popular midsize model — the bestselling car in Norway in 2019 — fell to second place in 2020, losing out to Volkswagen’s VOW, -0.54% Audi e-tron with Volkswagen’s ID.3 in third.
> What's the problem for Tesla? It's Volkswagen. VW's ID.3 has been an extraordinary success in Europe and has knocked Tesla'sTSLA business for a loop. With VW’s launch of the ID.4 in China—start of ID.4 production at both of VW’s Chinese JV facilities occurred two weeks ago and the consumer launch event for both the ID.4 X and ID. 4 CROZZ models occurred last Tuesday—Tesla's era of BEV dominance in that country is over.
> According to the CPCA, Tesla sold 12,103 Model 3s in October against a market for BEVs (pure electrics, I exclude hybrids since Tesla does not make them) that totaled 121,000. That 10% market share puts Tesla in fourth place behind SAIC-GM-Wuling, BYD, and SAIC's own brand, and also puts Tesla behind the combined sales of the "start-ups" Li Auto, WM Motors, Xpeng and NIO, which totaled a combined 14,800 units in October.
> In May, by contrast, Tesla delivered 11.362 units in China according to the CPCA, representing 17.3% of the monthly total of 65,728 BEV deliveries in China. Tesla has been able to maintain monthly deliveries in the 10,000-12,000 unit range, but that is well short of the company's published capacity of 250,,000 units annually in China (or 21,000 per month.) and clearly the competition is eating into Tesla’s market share.
Musk is trying to buy his way out of the poor design and quality of build problems by spending money on new factories overseas and hiring talent to improve these quality issues.
> Once a director is hired for China, Tesla will reportedly be filling in the county’s dedicated design team, which would comprise around 20 people. A number of candidates for the position have reportedly been interviewed by global design chief Franz von Holzhausen.
> Once operational, the dedicated design studio in China would not only help conceptualize the form of a car. The facility will also be creating the final three-dimensional models of vehicles. Research on Chinese consumer tastes will reportedly be conducted by the studio as well, allowing the company to operate a rather independent branch in the Asian country.
This is what Musk actually needs to do if he doesn't want his company's car sales to fall off a cliff. He has to build factories in other countries and create an entirely new design and engineering leadership, process and culture. In effect, he has to use the boatload of investor cash he's been gifted with to buy his company into being better than it currently is capable of being.
Tesla's high stock price valuation is based on there being exploding EV sales growth. But Tesla will have an increasingly small piece of that growing pie. Because it was the first out in the market, its market share is currently about 18% of that market. Projections of its market share in 2021 and beyond show that it's not possible for it to maintain that level of market share because of the quality of its competition being better
> Currently, Tesla has about 18% of a global EV market that itself has about 3% fo the global passenger vehicle market. In short, Tesla has a big piece of a small pie.
> Things are about to change fast with more than a dozen new all-electric vehicle programs launching over the next 12 months alone, and many more to come in the next few years. Personally, I predict that the EV market share will more than double to between 7 and 10% of the global auto market in 2021 alone.
> I expect Tesla is going to grow its sales by roughly 50% next year, which is going to help, but I think that Volkswagen with the ID.3 and ID.4, Audi with Q4 e-tron, Ford with the Mustang Mach E, Nissan with Ariya, and many more, are going to have an even greater impact than Tesla increasing sales by 50%.
So while EV sales will explode, Tesla's sales will not if you compare what Tesla is selling to what its competitors are offering. Other car companies sales will grow more/faster than Tesla's sales.
The vast amount of money that Musk can throw at his improving production build and design quality is also less of an advantage going forward, now that Apple, Bidu and other massive companies with deep pockets are entering the market.
Ultimately, Tesla is going to be more and more marginalized in the EV space until it's a niche company for quirky people who are attracted to the cult product aspect of the company.
> How??? Long term, you can only believe this if you think Tesla is going to have an absolute monopoly on the market, which is definitely not going to happen.
You don't need a monopoly. Take your favorite company. Any company not named Tesla. They launch a new product and total revenue goes up to nearly 9x. Stock literally doesn't budge at all. How would you look at that situation?
This is literally what happened to Tesla. The Model 3 made them a $25B per year company and the stock stayed at ~$200 for most of last year.
> And if the market for EV’s is so large in the future do you really believe well established, profitable companies aren’t going to put much more resources into expanding their EV’s to steal market share?
Can they? There's now a race on for car companies to electrify their lineups. But not everybody has battery supply. Not everybody has their own hardware. Read this article about a Nikkei teardown that finds Tesla custom silicon is 6 years ahead of Toyota and Volkswagen:
And then there's battery supply. Their Gigafactory in Nevada literally doubled the world's supply of Li-Ion batteries.
That is what it took to get the cost reduction needed to make the Model 3 cost competitive. Other companies are now building their own factories. But they are years in behind. In Europe, there's a literal panic that the German auto sector might not survive the transition to electric. So the EU is pumping billions in government subsidies to build these factories.
But it's not like Tesla hasn't anticipated any of this. They have literally bought out every company that helped them developed their highly automated line, specialized tooling and specific capabilities.
Several of these companies had multiple other automakers as clients. Tesla forced them to drop those clients after the acquisition.
Competition is coming though. And I think Volkswagen and Rivian will be the ones to really give Tesla a run for its money. The question is whether we end up with an Apple situation where Tesla has a smaller marketshare but a higher profits share. I think this what most longs are hoping for. No idea if they'll be right or wrong on this.
As for profits at the other automakers..... Look at the losses and depressed profits in a booming economy:
So how do they compete with falling profits that they have to pay to shareholders just as they need to spend massive amounts of capital to transition to a whole new business model? Some of these companies won't survive the transition. Or will be very much diminished. Like Nokia, RIM, Palm and Sony-Ericsson after the iPhone and Android.
> And don’t even try to handwave criticism away with the ‘BuT tHeIr A tEcH cOmPaNy.’ Most vehicle manufacturers do more than just sell cars. By Tesla fanboys definition, virtually everyone is a tech company.
Something like half of Tesla's employees are employed in software. At a traditional automaker it's in the single digit percentages of the workforce. Make of that anecdote what you will. But I don't think the traditional automakers realized how much the game has changed till about a year or two. And now they are all in a panic to emulate the same model.
The traditional auromakers have now seem three years of declining sales. There's talk that we have hit peak car. Another year of decline would confirm that. The only segment that is growing is electrics and with the exception of Volkswagen, other automakers until recently were still thinking the transition was decades away.
Here's Toyota in 2017 saying they had until 2040-2050:
Here's Toyota in 2019 pledging to electrify their entire lineup by 2025:
But because Toyota never took electrification seriously, they never secured the battery supply to fully electrify. So most of their models will be plug-in hybrids. This is Toyota trying to survive the transition. There's plenty of other examples.
> Tesla fanboys need to get real.
I've already mentioned elsewhere that I don't trade TSLA because it's too volatile for me. But I try and understand both the long and short thesis on the stock.
I do look for value opportunities to invest in the coming tech disruption of transport and energy. If you haven't seen any of Tony Seba's presentations, highly recommend this one:
I agree to a point, but...
>No one is ever forced to overspend or buy something that they don’t need.
There has been a trend since the mid 90s where much if the stuff you need is deliberately made of poor quality materials and/or is designed to fail and in most cases cannot be repaired. Most recently we have seen this being challenged in the "right to repair" movement (check it out if you haven't heard about it).
In the past cheaply made cheap goods were always available but what has changed is in many segments you cannot find quality goods at nearly any price, this is all by design to steal use/equity from you. I read recently you should expect a 2,000 refrigerator to last 4-6 years. Four to six years?!? The refrigerator which came with my house is from 1991 and no matter the cost it will be repaired when it needs to be, even if that cost is $2,000. Even frugal people can feel the pinch of this deliberate theft unless they use unorthodox means.
>You don’t need a $20,000 car yet more and more Americans are taking out ridiculous car loans for more than six-year terms.
I worked wholesale cars for several years before going part time then out of the business altogether. Since about 2013 the entire US wholesale market has been artificially inflated by at least 30%. Part of it is demand, and until about 2016 part supply, but after 2016 production which ramped up in 2012-14 started hitting the block and wholesale we have not seen a dip. I still get the data and the numbers of some of the cars shock me.
Until Nov 2018 I was switching between a 2002 Saturn and a 2008 Pontiac, but I was concerned about the zero degree weather we've been seeing nearly every January here and one of them not starting because of age or component failure due to climate. I purchased my first new car ever (also first retail car purchase ever) for 17,5. I tried to use favors to go to the auction but the model I wanted at the time was trading for around 15,8 and by the time I pay the auction feels and dealer commissions I would have been at 16,5ish for a used car when the new one with warranty was another grand.
I had access to the true valuation information the public does not have, and have the skills and savvy to understand what I was getting into. John Q Public does not, I'm amazed John Q Public can dress himself in the morning. They are marks for anyone with more than a month's sales experience, but the truth is its always been that way and in order for there to be wholesale cars these rubes have to buy them new. Now for the finanically savvy, we would always buy the uses model right? Try doing that today, I mean I see $500 junk advertised for $3,000+ everywhere and even if one can scrape up the min of $10K for something half decent, they don't know what its trading for and since Cox Automotive -who owns Manheim Auctions- bought Kelly Blue Book guess what? Nobody outside the business has any accurate valuation data anymore. NADA was always fiction but KBB in the mid 00s was +/- 15% of what most stuff traded for at the time. Now? At least 30% off, probably more. This is done on purpose to help the dealers who buy from Cox's Manheim division rip you off on retail sales.
I'm all for buy cheap and run it until it dies but a lot of what has been sold since 2005 is not reliable because of Fedgov mandates which ultimately hurt poor people. Direct injections, high pressure fuel systems, CVT transaxles, turbo motors. Every one of those things had significant teething issues and except in the case of safety every one of those is inferior to the automotive tech before it.
Sorry for the rant on this point, the truth is even the educated buyer is getting reemed these days and it will only get worse. Much of this plays into the themes of planned obsolesce, really theft of equity/ownership, but on a macro scale the theme of Agenda 2030 and the [un]sustainable future.
>You don’t need the newest phone yet everyone has the newest iPhone or galaxy.
I agree, but they hooked the kids on this junk and many of them have actual addiction problems now. Couple this the fact Apple was caught sabotaging older phones' performance through "updates", they are keeping you on a lease like cycle where you cannot own the device reliably more than a certain period. IT software has been this was since the 90s, you see it with the Windows upgrades every so many years but with the difference being MSFT doesn't sabotage the older systems after the date of expiration.
I bought a rare phone on E-bay from Hong Kong last year, Samsung Galaxy Folder. Its a flip phone and a smart phone, and per usual as I've noticed nothing good is ever carried in the US markets its always abroad. I bought it not knowing for sure it would work on US cell systems but took the risk at $275 and use it daily. Because it folds the screen doesn't get damaged, and with it being somewhat modern I can get bluetooth calls in the car and go on the internet while still being able to use it as a phone for calls. Best thing I've bought in years. Everyone asks about it and when I quote them $275 on E-bay its "wow so cheap" when from my POV its the most expensive phone I have ever had and was too expensive IMO (paid $60 after rebate for Motorola VE465 in 2008, finally broke in 2014). I don't allow it to update and the cell network doesn't push them down probably because its a weird unlocked Chinese market phone. I'll be using it for years, but the truth is buyers don't have any concept of things outside this market and country. I do agree what they do is foolish, but its not all their bad choices. Some of them do too much with the phones and the prospect of them being out of support is a real business issue.
>You don’t need to eat out every morning for breakfast but yet Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts drive-through‘s are always busy.
One thing I've noticed among the Millennials and occasionally myself depending on the job, is they work entirely too much and we all waste far too much time in the 20th Century concept of commuting. Because of this, there really is not time to cook a proper breakfast and due to the destruction of the family unit there isn't a spouse available to have something ready before they leave for work. So they choose quick sugar and or caffeine (both of which should be regulated), I mean I agree with you but this is the reality they face. For many years I would forgo breakfast and skip to a healthy lunch, for a number of years my former employer staffed a live kitchen and I could order whatever I wanted. Instead of worrying about cooking, I literally had a standing large lunch and dinner to go order which helped me lose a lot of weight and feel wonderful. Since then my weight has been up and down, most recently I started buying protein bars at Costco (1g sugar) and using them as a breakfast and lunch substitute. But I do this funny thing called thinking, most do not.
>You don’t need to go to a bar and spend $80 on drink but yet bars are the only reason most restaurants survive. People spend $10 on mixed drinks when you can get a 750 ML bottle for as little as 17 bucks.
Absolutely right, and I say this as someone who frequented bars when he was younger. Drinking in general should be something we limit as a society more for health reasons than financial ones.
>People are borrowing on credit more than ever.
Part of this is because of the dire circumstances of the true economy in the past thirty to fifty years. Some consumer goods -regardless of quality- have become very cheap such as the 60in TV. But the cost of everything else has skyrocketed, everything you really need. I trace this back to the Nixon Shock but it seems to have accelerated in recent years probably due to all of the funny money printed since 2008.
Essentially the cycle always was grow up -> work/taxes -> family -> acquire assets and things -> retire -> expire with relatively low inflation in the background and safe investments available. Now its grow up -> work/taxes and more taxes -> acquire things but not assets (and owning nothing) -> never retire -> expire on your feet or broken in state care. You can never own anything and even if you do then its with juice because wages vs asset prices have been so divorced for thirty years you cannot even hope to "buy" without the banksters. This is the consequence of a financialized system.
>Both google and apple already tried to buy Tesla. In 2013 and 2014. They have plenty of cash to do it with, too.
So why didn't they?
>They'd do it because Tesla owns 60% of the BEV market
this won't be the case anymore. Competition is just now arriving. The days of the Tesla monopoly are over.
The e-golf is already outselling the Tesla model 3 in Q2 in norway.
>has tons of data of all sorts, has an almost worldwide supercharger network, 400k+ cars on the road
These are not real advantages. First off other manufacturers have way more cars on the road and sell way more cars than Tesla. They are also profitable and have deeper pockets setting up infrastructer won't be a problem for them.
>Not to mention the fact that the cars they made in 2012 are still 63% more efficient than the next best BEVs made in 2019. Tesla has tons of tech anyone serious about BEVs would love to get their hands on.
This has to do with what you priorise in battery chemistry. Faster charge times like the e-tron will require compromises in other areas. Tesla also doesnt have a long term battery advantage, again the other players have deeper pockets and will easily be able to catch up to Tesla.
>To an extent I understand and can even empathize with the bear thesis on Tesla, but to pretend the company is worthless is just asinine
The company is not wortheless. It has products that are loved by consumers and valuable assets. It's just not nearly worth as much as the market thinks it is.
we can't use cashflow or earings for Tesla since it doesnt make any money so price to book value and price to sales are probbaly the best way to value to the company.
Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors trade at 1x (Toyota), 0.65 (Volkswagen) and 1.3x (General Motors) bookvalue. Tesla trades at 9x book value.
Volkswagen trades at 0.32x sales, Daimler (0.34x sales) and General motors 0.37x sales. Tesla trades at 1.8x times sales.
So what would be a realistic valuation? if we were to use price to sales it would be 37 dollars. Price to book would give us 26 dollars. So fair value should be around 30 dollars. 50 dollars if you are optimistic about Tesla's future.
Now you could argue that Tesla is growing much faster than all these companies (wich I personaly dont agree with) but Tesla is also significantly more risky than these companies and is likely to fail. You can also argue that Tesla is more than an automobile company but I would like to argue against that. Solar MW deployed has declined since 2016 and it's only a fraction of their buiseness thats also not profitable. Tesla insurance and Robotaxis also dont exisit yet and highly unlikely that Tesla will be succesfull in these areas.
Yeah of course you don't have to invent it as in be first to patent. You have to commercialize t well. Apple has invented fairly few technologies, but commercialized many amazingly well. Tesla commercialized sporty electric vehicles, their charging stations all over the US, and their power walls are very popular as well. They spent most of their efforts into technological improvements, therefore they're a tech company.
Compare job postings for Tesla and GM and tell me if they look like they're building the same thing. It's hard to even find a software engineering position at GM.
|Company|Symbol|Price|Change|Change%|Analytics| |:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--| |Voya Financial, Inc. Common Sto|VOYA|29.99|-2.02|-6.31| HOVER: More Info |General Motors Company Common S|GM|30.57|-0.68|-2.18| HOVER: More Info |Apple Inc.|AAPL|94.18|-1.00|-1.05| HOVER: More Info |Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. Com|AXTA|28.35|-0.11|-0.39| HOVER: More Info |U.S. Bancorp Common Stock|USB|41.55|-0.95|-2.24| HOVER: More Info |Celgene Corporation|CELG|101.09|-2.13|-2.06| HOVER: More Info |Visa Inc.|V|76.85|-0.34|-0.44| HOVER: More Info
^^Quotr ^^Bot ^^v1.0 ^^by ^^spookyyz