4 ms·
1.5B net on $100B revenue is not great. 1.5%? If that's not struggling, it's uncomfortably close.
by AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
1.5B net on $100B revenue is not great. 1.5%? If that's not struggling, it's uncomfortably close.
- jedberg 10mo agoFor comparison, GM brought in $1.3B on $48B.
- mxschumacher 10mo agoand Tesla is valued at over 21x more than GM
- awesome_dude 10mo agoSorry, I lost the thread - GM looks twice as profitable, the same profit on half the revenue How does that justify Tesla's valuation? Is it based on the idea that the margin can be improved?
- andsoitis 10mo ago> Sorry, I lost the thread - GM looks twice as profitable You got it reversed. For Q3'2025, GM net income $1.3B on $48B revenue (down 0.3% YoY). Tesla, in contrast, generated $1.5B income on $28B revenue (up 12% YoY). GM's income was down 56.6% while Tesla's was down 37%. GM had higher operating income than Tesla, however. Explained by Tesla's more aggressive investment in R&D and AI.
- awesome_dude 10mo agoAh, got it now, thanks
- moogly 10mo agoIt's based on "Tesla shareholders want the stock to live in a parallel universe".
- andsoitis 10mo ago> 1.5B net on $100B revenue is not great. 1.5%? If that's not struggling, it's uncomfortably close. You're misreading. $100B annual revenue. 1.5B quarterly new income. Q3 2025 was record revenue of $27B (up 12% YoY). Operating margin was 5.8% (down from 10.8 Q3 2024). Why the lower profitability? Higher expenses for AI and R&D costs, lower EV prices (very strong competition), etc.
- boplicity 10mo agoLook at the free cash flow, and the situation looks maybe even worse. They're basically not worth much, if anything, from a free cash flow perspective.