Transcripts

General Motors Company's management answers for the business every quarter. These are the exchanges that explain it best — verbatim, from the call transcripts preserved in Sources. Each link opens the full transcript at that page in a new tab.

Q2 2026 Earnings Call — Q2 2026

The current state of the business in management's own framing: margins back in the target band, the truck launch, and the case that software, defense and insurance make GM less cyclical. · Open the full transcript →

Capital allocation stated as arithmetic: free cash flow funds buybacks, and the share count is down 35% in three years.

Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): On capital allocation, our strong first half-adjusted automotive free cash flow of $6.3 billion allowed us to continue executing against our share buyback program. In the second quarter, we made $2 billion in open market share repurchases, retiring approximately 25 million shares, which brings our first-half total to $2.8 billion repurchased and 36 million shares retired. This is nearly $1 billion more than the first half of last year, despite our EV restructuring efforts. We ended the second quarter with a diluted share count of 893 million, approximately 8% below where we ended the second quarter of 2025 and 35% below the second quarter of 2023. We have $3.5 billion remaining under our current repurchase authorization and expect to continue to consistently repurchase shares, supported by strong cash flow and our ending Q2 automotive cash balance of $19.7 billion.

p. 2 · Read in context →

How the warranty tailwind is built — cash outflows must plateau before accrual rates can come down.

Joe Spak (UBS); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): Thank you. Second one is just on warranty, which seems like it's sort of coming in more favorable. Was wondering if you could maybe quantify how much warranty helped on a year-overyear basis in the quarter. Then if I recall, I think it's the third quarter where you typically have this reevaluation and potential reset of accrual rates. With respect to your full year commentary on warranty, I just want to make sure that really that's just sort of the better experience you've seen to date, and then there's maybe some potential for a reset to lower accruals later this year as well. Is that correct?

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer):

Yeah. As we said in the prepared remarks, Joe, it's about $500 million of benefit in the first half of the year. We increased from a billion-dollar year-over-year tailwind to a billion to a billion and a half. That's really as we're starting to look at what the September quarter Q3 adjustment will be, and as we go forward. We continue to see some good trends. It's not without some new challenges that pop up from time to time. I think the team overall is executing well. We think that this is part of the multi-year tailwind. Ideally, as we've talked about before, the monthly cash outflows plateau and then start to come down as we get through some of these historic quality spills, et cetera. That's where we can see benefit into 2027 and 2028 beyond what we're seeing in 2026.

p. 6 · Read in context →

The capital-discipline test applied to energy storage: partner for optionality rather than fund a plant in a commoditised business.

Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO); question from Andrew Percoco (Morgan Stanley): Andrew, I think this has been obviously a topic across the industry. We've tried to approach it from, first of all, capital discipline as we look at the restructuring that we've done and so on. The idea, we turned down opportunities to put billions of capital into plants to tool up for what is already a highly competitive business based on potential extension of government credits and tax credits, et cetera. I think really what we're looking at here is how do we partner with technology that has synergies to the overall business, do it in a capital efficient manner. What we found in Peak Energy was the promise of a lot of technology, the ability to scale in something that we think is going to be cost effective, while at the same time we don't have to invest billions in capital to do it. We have a lot of optionality to participate as we choose. We're optimistic and in conversations with them, we think that there's a really good growth platform. We're going to be cautious rather than going all in into a hyper-competitive business.

p. 9 · Read in context →

Asked whether affordability is pushing buyers down-market, Barra says the long-predicted mix shift simply is not showing up.

Andrew Percoco (Morgan Stanley); Mary Barra (Chair and CEO): Then maybe my second question, just as it relates to, I know there's obviously a lot of attention on affordability. Doesn't seem to have really had an impact yet on demand for trucks. I know sometimes it takes a while for that to flow through. I'm just curious, as you think about your guidance for the remainder of the year, as obviously you made some comments about 2027, are you anticipating a mix shift more towards crossovers, understanding they're more profitable today than they maybe were two years ago? Just curious if you've made any underlying assumptions for that mix shift into maybe smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles in the back half of the year and into 2027. […] Well, Andrew, that's been predicted for several months now, and it's just not happening. We're seeing really strong full-size truck demand and full-size utility for that matter. We're building everything that we can sell. To your point, we're going to be guided by the consumer, and I mentioned how we've improved the profitability of our SUVs across the board. I think we're extremely well positioned from an affordability perspective to meet the customer where we are, but we're just not seeing it. I think something would have to happen for a long period of time before people would make potentially a different decision. We're seeing strength even though it's been predicted now for probably about three or four months.

p. 9 · Read in context →

Fleet reframed: no longer a dumping ground for excess capacity but a deliberately allocated, margin-neutral channel.

Mark Delaney (Goldman Sachs); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): My other question was on fleet. It's been very strong, as you mentioned in the prepared remarks. Why does GM think the fleet business has been so strong, and what's your view on the ability to sustain that? Thank you.

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer):

I think the team's done a really good job here, Mark, it really goes to the quality of the portfolio and the services that we can offer across the board. When we look at the relations that we have with our fleet customers, and that's across the board, whether it's rental or it's government or it's commercial, I think those go a long way, and they really respond to the products that we have. I think the difference is, fleets historically, I think was an outlet for excess capacity. That's really changed today. We very consciously allocate between retail and fleet and where we can, but we don't sacrifice value when we're doing that. We're looking to balance the enterprise as a whole, rather than historically where we would just offer pretty significant discounts on the fleet side. That's not the way it's working anymore, and it really depends on those relationships.

p. 14 · Read in context →

Q1 2026 Earnings Call — Q1 2026

The clearest walk-through of how the OnStar/Super Cruise business is actually accounted for, plus the commodity-hedging and EV-charge cash mechanics behind the guidance. · Open the full transcript →

Why GM's autonomy bet is a product bet, not a fleet bet: one system spread across ICE and EV, brands and price points.

Mary Barra (Chair and CEO): We are doing something unique in the autonomous space, which is developing a system for personal vehicles that we can deploy on both ICE vehicles and EVs and scale across multiple brands and price points. We're stress testing it in the digital environment capable of simulating roughly 100 years of human driving every single day. We recently took the next step and began supervised on-road testing in California and Michigan. The way we're building this technology is a reflection of how seriously we're embracing AI across the enterprise. Today, nearly 90% of the code written by our autonomy team is generated by AI.

p. 2 · Read in context →

The EV restructuring as a cash schedule: $7.6bn of 2025 charges plus $1.1bn more, and how much of the cash portion is already out the door.

Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): In the second half of 2025, GM recorded a total of $7.6 billion in EV related charges. This breaks down into $4.6 billion of estimated cash charges and $3 billion in noncash impairments. In the first quarter, we took an additional $1.1 billion in EV charges, driven mainly by contract cancellations and supplier commercial claims. We expect about $1 billion of this will have a future cash impact. We're moving quickly to finalize claims. To date, we've already recorded around 90% of the expected total supplier commercial claim costs, and we anticipate reaching agreements in principle on most of the remainder during the second quarter. Separately, we continue to work expeditiously through rightsizing our battery supply chain with our joint venture partners. Of the total, $5.6 billion in EV-related cash charges recorded since the second half of 2025, $2.6 billion has been paid as of March 31. In April, we've already paid an additional $600 million, and we continue to expect most of the remaining cash flows to occur in 2026.

p. 3 · Read in context →

Pressed on the guidance raise, Jacobson concedes it is the tariff receivable, not an operating change, and no refund timing is assumed.

Joe Spak (UBS); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): And one clarification on the tariff receivable: this is just the receivable for your overpayment, correct? You are not assuming in your guidance that you will avoid paying this in the back half or that the 122 replacements remain in place. You are not modeling a benefit from not paying it in the back half, correct? […] Yes. Let me cover the tariff question first. We took the direct tariff we paid last year that was subject to the Supreme Court decision and credited that back as a receivable. We haven't changed our free cash flow guidance because we don't know when the refunds will be received or how that window might work going forward. That's the only assumption we've made. Keep in mind most of our tariff burden comes from 232, so the EPA-related portion is relatively small versus our size. Because of that entry, we lowered the tariff guidance. We are not projecting any other changes to our tariff bill. When I said guidance down, I was referring to tariff bill guidance.

p. 6 · Read in context →

Commodity exposure explained: hedges plus steel contracts laddered in thirds, which damps moves in both directions.

Emmanuel Rosner (Wolfe Research); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): That's very fair and great color. And I guess just as a follow-up on this then, in terms of input cost inflation and commodities, can you tell us what you have assumed in this updated guidance, which reflects that inflation costs have been increased by another $0.5 billion? What are you assuming for commodities in the back half, or how long they stay high as a base case scenario?

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer):

Yes, Emmanuel. What we've done is take the current curve net of our hedges. It's not entirely direct or linear because of, for example, our steel contracts. If you recall, roughly one third is spot, one third expires within a year, and the remaining third is over two years, and that mix has helped us. When prices go down we pay a little more, and when prices go up we pay a little less. We expect the current environment to persist through the year, and if the conflict ends and commodity and oil prices return to pre-conflict levels, we could potentially see upside.

p. 7 · Read in context →

The Super Cruise model contrasted with rivals: customers prepay three years, which covers the hardware, then ~40% renew.

Mark Delaney (Goldman Sachs); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): My other question was on Super Cruise and the digital services. For the strong growth that GM has been seeing in Super Cruise and the willingness for consumers to subscribe after the prepaid subscriptions last, can you speak a bit more on the breadth of that consumer demand? And is it concentrated in the higher end parts of the portfolio like Cadillac or is GM seen consumer demand for those solutions more broadly?

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer):

So what I would say, Mark, is we're continuing to trend at about a 40% attachment rate after the subscription period, and we do it differently. Other competitors put the hardware on every vehicle and bear that cost; in our case, consumers who purchased Super Cruise prepaid for a three-year period, which covers the hardware cost. That creates deferred revenue tied to the vehicle, and then we have the subscription afterwards. We're starting to see an increase in the number of vehicles coming off that three-year prepaid period, and we're still holding attachment rates in the 40% range. We're very optimistic about what that means. When you look at ARPU, you have to take into account the scale advantage we have, especially as we grow into SDV 2.0 and expand it more broadly. Super Cruise is a strong leading indicator, and we're continuing to invest in delivering more value to customers to make it even more attractive in the future.

p. 7 · Read in context →

Where the software-like margin comes from — hardware expensed at the sale, revenue deferred over three years.

Michael Ward (Citigroup); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): And then just going back to the digital services. I think you said that you expect margins to be in line with other software companies. When will we see those types of margins? I don't know if we're there yet now or not or if they're upfront costs you take. How does that cost/revenue curve look out over the next 2 to 3 years?

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer):

Yes. Mike, this gets a little technical, but I’ll summarize. When we sell a vehicle with Super Cruise, all the hardware costs are expensed immediately, while the revenue tied to that gets deferred over a three-year trial period. That deferred revenue comes in at a very high margin because the cost has already been recognized. For our other digital services and OnStar, some hardware costs are also expensed with the vehicle and there are ongoing service costs, so those margins aren’t quite as strong as the fully deferred case, but they’re still substantial. As we ramp up the deferred revenue base and it starts to amortize into the P&L at increasing rates, you’ll begin to see the impact. We discussed this at Investor Day a few years ago — it was expected to grow to a point that affects the company’s overall margins — and we’re starting to see that take hold. We also see a lot of potential from SDV 2.0 and future improvements to Super Cruise and eventually autonomy as we scale.

p. 9 · Read in context →

Q4 and Full Year 2025 Earnings Call — FY2025

The full-year reset: what the EV charges cost, what the capital-return record looks like after two years of buybacks, and the bridge to the 2026 guidance. · Open the full transcript →

The buyback record: $23bn returned and a third of the share count retired since late 2023, plus the valuation logic for continuing.

Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): Returning capital to shareholders remains a cornerstone of our capital strategy. In the fourth quarter, we executed $2.5 billion in open market share repurchases, retiring another 33 million shares and bringing total buybacks for the year to $6 billion. In 2025, we also distributed more than $500 million in dividends. Since announcing our accelerated share repurchase program in November 2023, we have returned $23 billion to shareholders through share repurchases. These actions have reduced our outstanding share count by more than 465 million shares or nearly 35%. Leaving approximately 930 million diluted shares at year-end 2025. Our strong execution and consistent capital returns have delivered substantial shareholder value with our stock price appreciating more than 170% since late November 2023. This performance reinforces our conviction that repurchasing GM stock at current valuation levels, which are back to historical norms but remain well below our peers represents one of the most compelling opportunities to continue to generate longterm shareholder value.

p. 3 · Read in context →

The EV write-down itemised: cash versus non-cash, and the point that the retail EV portfolio itself was not impaired.

Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): Turning now to our EV charges. During the third and fourth quarters, we reassessed our EV capacity and manufacturing footprint to better align with softer-than-expected consumer demand particularly in light of recent US government policy changes including the termination of certain consumer tax incentives. As a result, in the third quarter, we recorded charges totaling $1.6 billion including $1.2 billion of noncash impairment charges primarily related to transitioning our Orient assembly from EV to ICE production. The remaining $400 million consisted of cash charges associated with contractual cancellations and supplier settlements. […] The aggregate Q3 and Q4 charges totaled $7.6 billion of which $4.6 billion is expected to be settled in cash. In 2025, we made approximately $400 million in cash payments and expect to pay the majority of the remaining balance in 2026. […] It is important to note that besides BrightDrop, we have not impaired our existing retail portfolio of EVs. We are working to improve the profitability of these vehicles through new battery technologies, engineering improvements, and operational efficiencies, along with a more rational EV market. As consumer adoption of EVs increases, albeit at a slower pace than previously anticipated, we expect to achieve the necessary scale to deliver EVs profitably over time.

p. 4 · Read in context →

The hardest question on the call: does a fixed-cost base built for a far larger EV market still fit? The answer is what they chose to keep.

Dan Levy (Barclays); Mary Barra (Chair and CEO); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): Great. Thank you. As a second question, I wanted to just ask about the dynamics of you product portfolio. And within that, first, maybe you could just address the fixed cost bas that you have. You still have all of your EV programs intact. You still have much of the battery capacity intact. This was set for a higher volume outlook you know, to what extent does this portfolio align with what's gonna likely be higher near-term ICE mix? And then maybe you could just address the potential to add hybrids into the portfolio. Just how much more do we have to see the portfolio and the fixed cost base shift to adjust to this new reality that we have. […] Yeah. Just to add to that, Dan, I think, you know, as we went through the restructuring, we were mindful of, you know, where is the excess capacity that we know we're not gonna need for a long time. Because we had built up for a very different regulatory environment Mary had said. But we're also cognizant of making sure that we preserve capacity to be able to pivot and rotate where we need to to get the cost savings. So particularly as it relates to battery capacity, you know, we've got enough to be able to transition to LMR and to LFP as those projects get underway over the next couple of years. So it really was trying to look at, you know, what is the right short-term decision, but also how do we balance that against long- term and where we know it's gonna go or we believe it's gonna go in the future. And as far as, you know, vehicle programs, remember, with the product cycle that the industry has, some of these decisions were made years ago. And we have to do our best to be able to pivot to where demand is gonna be. And I think if you look at this management team, and what it's accomplished over the last several years in the midst of a lot of uncertainty, I think, I think we've got what it takes to be able to respond and meet the consumer where they are a they continue to evolve.

p. 6 · Read in context →

GM Financial's industrial bank approval, and Sheffield declining to oversell it — deposits are complementary funding, worth basis points.

Michael Ward (Citigroup); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO); Susan Sheffield (President and CEO, GM Financial): And then on this announcement by the industrial bank, and I think FDIC approval the other day, that seems like a bigger deal than it just on the outset as it relates to the cost of capital for GM Financial. How much can you save from just a cost standpoint of capital?

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and CFO):

Yeah. I'll start, and then I'll let Susan chime in as well. But, you know, this is really a great achievement and one that, you know, candidly probably should have been approved, a few years ago as we went through that. But, you know, the perseverance of the team to get that through provides yet another opportunity to drive capital in an efficient way for us. It'll take some time, but, Susan, I'll let you comment on anything you wanna add.

Susan Sheffield (President and CEO of GM Financial):

Yeah. Thanks, Paul, and thanks for the question. I'm very excited to have the conditional approval and get the industrial bank up and running. And as Paul said, this is going to be complementary to our funding platform, and it will allow us to offer depository products and another source of funding to help us bring down the cost of funds somewhat. They are highyield savings accounts and broker deposits. So as it gets up and running, again, complementary to our footprint, not gonna replace how we fund the business but will be complementary to it and allow us to bring down the cost of funds in the basis points over time and on our debt complex, you know, that's a meaningful move.

Michael Ward (Analyst): Meaningful. Like, 100 basis points? Is that the type of meaningful move you're talking about?

Susan Sheffield (President and CEO of GM Financial):

Probably not that much. It just depends on the rate environment. But it's gonna help us be more competitive.

p. 7 · Read in context →

When the listed puts and takes net to zero, the answer is that the real driver is margin recovery on cost GM absorbed in 2025.

Colin Langan (Wells Fargo); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): Great. Thanks for taking my questions. If I look at the quantified puts and takes in the guidance, they kind of net out. So what is actually driving the expected increase? There's a slight increase in pricing. And then is the rest volume? Because I thought your commentary said ICE volume flat to slightly up. So what is the gap to kind of drive numbers up year over year?

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and CFO):

Yes. So good morning, Colin. Thanks for the question. So we try to do a good job of laying out sort of the key headwinds and tailwinds. But, when we lay all of that out together, we actually see some upside coming through on that. Some of it'll be in our ability to lower our net tariff exposure. Some of it will be on the regulatory side, that we expect coming in. As well. And then some of it is, you know, gonna be continued work on driving EV profitability improvement. So we laid out what we see on some of the fixed cost relief. But as you know, we struggled this year with sort of step down after step down after step down in EV costs. That, you know, at the end of the day result in a lot of supplier claims that we've tried to sort of all bring together in the onetime step down. So when you look at it across the board, all of those results in what we believe is gonna be a pretty strong year-over-year improvement as we've highlighted. Colin Langan (Analyst):

So is that a cost improvement that you're implying that outside of what's listed in the slide?

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and CFO):

I mean, ultimately, when you look at listings in the slide and what we've highlighted, it really comes down to a margin improvement on the vehicles, going forward because we absorbed so much cost in, in 2025. Between that warranty, all the tailwinds that we highlighted.

p. 11 · Read in context →

Warranty accounting from the ground up: monthly cash first, accruals follow, with the L87 V8 exposure named directly.

Emmanuel Rosner (Wolfe Research); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): And then it was hoping to ask you about the warranty cost benefit of a billion dollars for this year. You just remind us the dynamics and then drivers of this? Obviously, you had know, pretty large warranty costs in 2025. But then I think, you know, recently, there was a reopening of the investigation into some of these V8 engines. So how much of it has already been essentially provisioned for? And what drives really, the confidence in this year's benefit?

## Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and CFO):

Yeah. So, all of this starts, Emmanuel, with what we see on the monthly cash and where we see the exposure. It's obviously a very complex set of calculations and analyses going forward across the vehicle universe, but it really begins with cash. And, we've seen that flattening, which is the first thing that needs to happen before you can ultimately come back down the curve on accruals because of the lagging effect, there. But when you look at the L87 and the V8 engines, we've seen really good progress with the fixes that the team has put out there with the oil change and some of the testing that we can do with dealerships. So, we believe that, that will mitigate and hopefully ultimately bring that down or so certainly not lead to any more increases going forward. So, you know, the team is hard at work across looking at every detailed cause of the warranty accrual. It's not just the big ones, but it's the small ones. We're looking at inflationary pressures that we've seen at the dealerships. And making sure that, that the dealers are charging fair prices to us for warranty, as they are for retail across the board. And, it's really an all-hands-on-deck, and we're starting to see some really early green shoots on some of that work that's been ongoing. And that's where we think it'll compound into warranty savings for us into '26 and hopefully beyond.

p. 13 · Read in context →

Q3 2025 Earnings Call — Q3 2025

The call where the EV thesis was rewritten in public: $1.6bn of charges, Orion turned back to ICE, BrightDrop killed, and the reasoning laid out step by step. · Open the full transcript →

The causal chain behind the write-down: capacity was built for an emissions regime that no longer exists.

Mary Barra (Chair and CEO): On the regulatory side, our portfolio and capacity plans over the last several years had been heavily influenced by steadily increasing stringency requirements for fuel economy and emissions. To meet these requirements, we were working aggressively to install and scale EV capacity. Now with an evolving regulatory framework and the end of the federal consumer incentives, it's clear that near-term EV adoption will be much lower than planned. This is resulting in higher variable costs as we expect to utilize less capacity across our EV plants and supply chain. All of this drove our decision to transition Orion Assembly from EV to ICE production and to sell our joint venture-owned cell plant in Michigan to LG Energy Solution. It's also why we recorded a $1.6 billion special item charge in the third quarter. $1.2 billion of the charge is for noncash impairments, most of which are related to the Orion transition, reductions in battery module assembly capacity, our decision to stop development of next-generation hydrogen fuel cells and the write-off of CAFE credits and associated liabilities. The remaining $0.4 billion is for cash charges related to supplier contract cancellation costs.

p. 1 · Read in context →

BrightDrop shut down and the reset justified on forward economics rather than on the sunk charge.

Mary Barra (Chair and CEO): However, we have decided to stop BrightDrop production at CAMI Assembly and assess the site for future opportunities. This is not a decision we made lightly because of the impact on our employees. However, the commercial electric van market has been developing much slower than expected, and changes to the regulatory framework and fleet incentives have made the business even more challenging. Our actions on BrightDrop and our ongoing work to reset our capacity will cause us to recognize a charge in the fourth quarter. By acting swiftly and decisively to address overcapacity, we expect to reduce EV losses in 2026 and beyond, making us much better positioned as demand stabilizes.

p. 2 · Read in context →

Where the onshored capacity actually goes — unmet Equinox and full-size SUV demand, not only tariff avoidance.

Itay Michaeli (TD Cowen); Mary Barra (Chair and CEO): I have a question regarding the changing emissions regulations. Can you discuss how these regulations might impact your ability to sell more ICE full-size pickups and SUVs in the coming years? When considering the Orion capacity, should we view it as an opportunity for incremental volume growth for GM, or is it mainly about mitigating tariffs?

Mary Barra (Chair and CEO):

Well, Itay, thanks. And as we look at shifting emission regulation, first, all the signals are that there are going to be fewer constraints. We've already seen some changes. We are waiting, and I think it will be early next year where it's finalized. But anticipating that we're going to be able to sell our internal combustion engine vehicles for longer, there are a couple of triggers. First, as we announced that the Equinox production will be installed into Fairfax, we have unmet demand from an Equinox perspective. So that's one upside. The second is around full-size trucks. And right now, our demand is supply-constrained from a full-size SUV perspective. So when Orion comes online, that's going to give us an opportunity to fully maximize really what is a franchise for GM with full-size utilities. And then with the truck, some of it will be shifting more to the U.S. from a tariff perspective, but also there could be global demand from a full-size truck perspective. So I think some of it is tariff mitigation, but there definitely is upside on some of the vehicles that have been constrained, and demand has exceeded what we've been able to build.

p. 5 · Read in context →

Tariff mitigation unpacked into its three real buckets, with the honest note that the footprint bucket does not pay until 2027.

Dan Levy (Barclays); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): I wanted to just jump back on to the tariffs. And it looks like your mitigation is yielding stronger benefits. Maybe you could just unpack that a bit because it seems like in the market, pricing is a bit maxed out. We haven't seen the type of price increases we would have expected. So it looks like you're probably getting benefits off of the other two buckets you've discussed, which is cost and footprint. What's the runway on actions there and how this plays out in '26? And just to be clear, the current guidance for '25 tariffs does not include any easing of Korea tariffs. Is that correct?

## Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and CFO):

Yes, Dan, thanks for that question. So let me start with the first part. So if you go back to what we said at the beginning of the year, we really kind of highlighted three buckets: goto-market, footprint changes and fixed cost reductions. So go-to-market, we were pretty quick out of the gate to talk about changing our pricing forecast for the year, if you remember in the first quarter call. And that's held up, and we still expect to be up 0.5% to 1% on pricing year-over-year, somewhat helped by model '26, continued to help by the disciplined inventory and incentive approach that we've taken across the board. So that continues to bode pretty well for us. On the manufacturing footprint piece, we have some of those savings. If you recall, we announced an increase in the line rate in Fort Wayne, that's given us a little bit more utilization there that has flowed through. But the bulk of that is really going to be when the capital expenditures that we announced this year start to take effect in late '26, early '27 time frame. And then the third bucket is fixed cost. So I think we've done well to be disciplined there. We've seen a flattening of the curve pretty much, and I think we're maintaining that discipline. So all of those things we expect will hold into 2026 and the manufacturing footprint bucket can expand a little bit. And that's where we feel comfortable that we can get our net tariffs lower than what they are in 2025. And you're correct that there's no impact right now on any Korean changes in our guidance. We're still waiting for that to be finalized.

p. 6 · Read in context →

Autonomy strategy stated plainly: ~70% margins on Super Cruise today, Level 4 for personal vehicles, no robotaxi fleet.

Adam Jonas (Morgan Stanley); Mary Barra (Chair and CEO): Regarding autonomous vehicles, it seems that what was once perceived as nearly impossible is now being addressed. If you haven't been to Austin or San Francisco lately, you'll see significant progress. Your focus has shifted towards Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), Super Cruise, and personal autonomy. I appreciate the disclosure of the $200 million in revenue; it would be helpful to know more about its profitability. You mentioned your commitment to achieving Level 4 autonomy, specifically for personal vehicles. I’m curious whether you are planning to introduce robotaxis or if the priority is to first focus on personal vehicles and assess the outcomes. Additionally, what milestones should we expect by 2026 in your journey towards autonomy?

Mary Barra (Chair and CEO):

Yes. First of all, I am really pleased with the performance from Super Cruise today and the fact that it continues to improve. We're achieving approximately 70% margins on that business. Our focus is on personal autonomy and Level 4. We are not involved in rideshare services at this time, and when considering the complexities of operating a robotaxi fleet, that is not currently our core business. We are concentrating on individual vehicles. Even with today's rideshare services, people still prefer to own a car for the freedom it provides to travel whenever and wherever they want. We believe this preference will remain for a long time. However, personal autonomy in these vehicles will be crucial. We will share more about our milestones next year, but I can assure you that our team is working diligently. The software team, in collaboration with Cruise resources and Sterling Anderson, who joined us from Aurora, places us in a strong position. Stay tuned for updates on the 2026 milestones. Additionally, we will share more at our GM Forward Media Day tomorrow. Thank you, Adam, and best of luck to you.

p. 11 · Read in context →

Why one large charge beat another year of trimming: repeated step-downs 'wreak havoc' on supplier and logistics cost.

Emmanuel Rosner (Wolfe Research); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): I would like to explore further the strategies you have in place for continued progress in 2026, particularly concerning the losses in electric vehicles. Could you clarify some of the recent actions taken in Q3 and Q4, such as the write-downs of certain EV assets and adjustments to your capacity? Specifically, how much do these factors alone contribute to improving your structural costs for electric vehicles?

Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and CFO):

Emmanuel, I think if you look at this year, we talked about being able to improve our profitability with higher volume. And what we've seen is when we get into a situation where we have sequential step-downs in production capacity, it really wreaks havoc throughout the supply chain, logistics, supplier ramp-up costs, et cetera. So we found ourselves sort of chasing that downward. And what we really ultimately have realized is for now under the changing regulatory environment, we expect EV demand growth to slow pretty significantly from what it was going to be. And so we need to make sure that we rightsize the capacity footprint to be able to not have to absorb a lot of those fixed costs. So while it's unfortunate, I think it is a quick adjustment to the reality around us that we're facing, and we're pivoting to be able to do that. So the charges that we took in the quarter will help that a little bit. And as we've said, we're continuing to review this. We do expect there to be some additional charges in 4Q. We haven't fully sized that up. But as we do that work and ultimately finalize that in the quarter, I think we'll have a better view of how we can translate that to '26 and beyond.

p. 11 · Read in context →

Q2 2025 Earnings Call — Q2 2025

The tariff-shock quarter: $1.1bn of net tariff cost in one quarter against a $4–5bn annual exposure, and the sharpest analyst challenges to the EV plan. · Open the full transcript →

The structural answer to tariffs: $4bn of US plant investment adding 300,000 units and taking domestic output above 2 million.

Mary Barra (Chair and CEO): For example, the $4 billion of new investment in our US assembly plants will add 300,000 units of US capacity for high-margin light-duty pickups, full-size SUVs, and crossovers to help us greatly reduce our tariff exposure, satisfy unmet customer demand, and capture upside opportunities as we launch new models. The capacity begins coming online in just 18 months, after which we project building more than 2 million vehicles in the US each year as we scale.

p. 2 · Read in context →

The tariff bill quantified in the quarter it first bit, with the mitigation target and why offsets lag.

Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): EBIT adjusted was $3 billion for the quarter, inclusive of a net tariff impact of approximately $1.1 billion with minimal mitigation offsets. As we've previously mentioned, mitigation efforts will take time to yield results. Limiting their effect on the second quarter. However, we're still tracking to offset at least 30% of the $4 billion to $5 billion full-year 2025 tariff impact through strategic actions such as manufacturing adjustments, targeted cost initiatives, and consistent pricing.

p. 3 · Read in context →

Margin restated ex-tariff at ~9%, immediately followed by an unusually blunt admission on warranty.

Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): In North America, we delivered EBIT adjusted of $2.4 billion and EBIT adjusted margins of 6.1%. Excluding the impact of tariffs, our margin would have been approximately 9%, which underscores the fundamental strength of our business. On a comparative basis, this keeps us well within our pre-tariff margin target of 8 to 10%. In addition to the impact of tariffs, warranty expenses have also been the main factors behind the higher warranty expenses relate to L87 issues and higher warranty claims from software issues on some of our early EV launches. Let me be clear. We are not happy with our warranty trend and are facing these challenges head-on, with the top priority always being our customers. We provided extended warranties in some instances and taken other proactive steps to support those affected, including shifting some supply of our components to our aftersales group to decrease repair times.

p. 4 · Read in context →

With the tax credit gone, Levy asks whether the affordable EV can ever earn its keep; Barra commits without a date.

Dan Levy (Barclays); Mary Barra (Chair and CEO): that the tax credit is on its way out and there's changes in the regulatory schemes, I know we've been a broad lineup across price points, but the profitability has been challenged. And I think these changes indicate profitability is probably going to get a little trickier. So especially given you're losing some of the scale benefits, which was supposed to drive profit. So how do we look at you know, the depth or the breadth of your EV lineup going forward and the price points at which you're offering vehicles, when it seems like it's just gonna be much tougher to get profitability at the more lower price point? Is it that we just see higher price points, and that's the strategy? […] What we have been saying is that what we're investing going forward is largely focused on improving our EV profitability. The announcements we've made from a battery perspective, with LMR and LFP, some of the work that we're doing as we move forward to have a lighter architecture is more aerodynamic, that allows us to use a smaller battery. So we're very focused in this period of time to drive not just get to variable profit profitability but get profitability and then, you know, to continue to improve so we have appropriate and strong margins from our EVs as well. […] And there's a clear path to grow to get profitability on the affordable EV?

## Mary Barra (Chair and CEO):

Well, you know, that that is what we're working on from all aspects. And, definitely, the battery technology changes. And you know, as we grow with affordable, which is in the heart of the market, that gets us the scale benefits as well. So we are focused on each and every vehicle getting to profitability and we're not going to stop until they do.

p. 8 · Read in context →

Asked what tariffs do to earnings power beyond 2025, Jacobson separates the Korea line item from the structural self-help.

Ryan Brinkman (JPMorgan); Paul Jacobson (EVP and CFO): I wanted to ask on the impact of tariffs on your earnings power as we move beyond this year. Now earlier, you'd called out $4 to $5 billion of tariff impact over the course of 2Q through 4Q 2025. So annualizing to maybe $5.3 to $6.7 billion. The goal of mitigating at least 30% of the impact this year. But that was before the various investments in US manufacturing announced during the quarter. How should we think about these footprint actions impacting net tariff costs going forward? You know, what degree of tariff cost mitigation beyond the 30% target for this year do you think you might be able to accomplish after these investments come online in 18 months' time? Paul Jacobson (Executive Vice President and CFO):

Yeah. Good morning, Ryan. I'll take that one. Thanks for the question. You know, we have highlighted that up to $4 billion to $5 billion, about $2 billion of it is Korea. And as Mary mentioned in their comments and recent question that, you know, obviously, the trade deals with Mexico, Canada, and Korea are gonna be important. We're not speculating on what those are going to look like going forward, but, you know, there is a possibility, and I don't a likelihood, if you will, that that ultimately, a tariff rate gets set at a lower level, which would ultimately bring that impact down. As far as the other aspects of the tariffs, you know, we talked about the $4 billion which will bring us when all that is implemented, producing over 2 million vehicles here in the US. That will take care of part of a large part of the other remaining tariffs that are out there. We're still working through supply chain and other indirect tariffs, but we're not speculating on what it'll be. But I expect that it is likely lower than the current run rate of what you would see just as things shake out. Remember, we're only 90 days into this. As to the 30%, I mean, these are shifts in the general operation of the business that we don't necessarily think go away if tariffs are reduced. So, you know, I think we've got a longer-term plan to be able to mitigate a substantial part of this. You know, we're obviously looking for things to normalize around these trade deals that will get done. And we expect that'll happen. But, you know, it's too soon to extrapolate that as a run rate into the future.

p. 8 · Read in context →

More calls

Q1 2025 Earnings Call — Q1 2025 · 14 pages · Where the tariff exposure was first sized at $4–5 billion and 2025 guidance was cut to $10–12.5 billion EBIT-adjusted — the baseline every later tariff comment is measured against. · Open →

Q4 and Full Year 2024 Earnings Call — FY2024 · 13 pages · The pre-tariff peak: record $14.9bn EBIT-adjusted and $14bn free cash flow, the exit from robotaxi funding at Cruise worth ~$1bn a year, and the China restructuring plan. · Open →

Q3 2024 Earnings Call — Q3 2024 · 15 pages · Guidance raised to the top of the range on $900m of positive pricing, with the first signal that China restructuring charges were coming in Q4. · Open →

Q2 2024 Earnings Call — Q2 2024 · 15 pages · Record first-half revenue and the four drivers management credited for it — useful as the clean statement of the operating model before tariffs and the EV reset. · Open →

Q1 2024 Earnings Call — Q1 2024 · 15 pages · An early guidance raise plus the Cruise restart in Phoenix — the moment GM still expected to fund robotaxis and scale EVs on the original curve. · Open →

Q4 and Full Year 2023 Earnings Call — FY2023 · 13 pages · The post-strike reset: the $1.1bn full-year UAW cost, capital spending pulled back, and the decision to add plug-in hybrids to the North American plan. · Open →

Q3 2023 Earnings Call — Q3 2023 · 15 pages · Guidance withdrawn mid-UAW-strike, with Barra's direct case on labour cost and the original 2025 EV margin targets still on the table. · Open →