General Motors Q2 Results: Automaker's net profit drops 35%, revenue falls to $47.12 billion
GM CEO Mary Barra also said in a letter to shareholders on Tuesday that the automaker is attempting to 'greatly reduce our tariff exposure,' citing $4 billion of new investment in its U.S. assembly plants.
"In addition to our strong underlying operating performance, we are positioning the business for a profitable, long-term future as we adapt to new trade and tax policies, and a rapidly evolving tech landscape," she said.
Barra said during GM's conference call that the automaker expects to build more than 2 million vehicles in the U.S. each year as it scales production.
GM said that it's making solid progress in mitigating at least 30% of the $4 billion to $5 billion gross tariff impact it anticipates for the year through manufacturing adjustments, targeted cost initiatives and with pricing.
The company expects the impact from the Trump administration's tariffs to take a bigger toll in the third quarter because of indirect costs related to the duties.
Chief Financial Officer Paul Jacobson remained optimistic, however.
'Over time, we remain confident that our total tariff expense will come down as bilateral trade deals emerge and our sourcing and production adjustments are implemented,' he said.
For the three months ended June 30, GM earned $1.89 billion, or $1.91 per share. A year earlier the company earned $2.93 billion, or $2.55 per share.
Stripping out certain items, earnings were $2.53 per share. That handily beat the $2.34 per share analysts polled by FactSet were calling for.
Revenue declined to $47.12 billion from $47.97 billion, but still topped Wall Street's estimate of $45.84 billion.
Jacobson said that GM dealt with higher warranty expenses during the quarter, which was partly due to increase warranty claims from software issues on some of its early EV launches. Jacobson said GM provided extended warranties as needed and is working to improve supplier quality.
Shares fell nearly 2% before the opening bell on Tuesday.
EV sales totaled 46,300 in the second quarter, up from 31,900 in the first quarter. Yet overall in the U.S. EV sales growth has begun to slow. The $7,500 EV tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act is set to expire in September for many models.
'Despite slower EV industry growth, we believe the long-term future is profitable electric vehicle production, and this continues to be our north star,' she wrote. 'As we adjust to changing demand, we will prioritize our customers, brands, and a flexible manufacturing footprint, and leverage our domestic battery investments and other profit-improvement plans.'
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives believes Barra is doing a good job dealing with the issues the auto industry is facing.
'While the tariff headlines continue to put further pressure on the bottom line for the foreseeable future, we believe Barra & Co. continues to impressively navigate the complex backdrop successfully while seeing continued high demand for its entire fleet of EVs and (internal combustion engine) vehicles,' he wrote in a client note.
GM maintained its full-year financial forecast. In May General Motors lowered its profit expectations for the year as the carmaker braced for a potential impact from auto tariffs as high as $5 billion in 2025.
The Detroit automaker said at the time that it anticipated full-year adjusted earnings before interest and taxes in a range of $10 billion to $12.5 billion. The guidance includes a current tariff exposure of $4 billion to $5 billion.
A month later GM announced plans to invest $4 billion to shift some production from Mexico to U.S. manufacturing plants. The company said at the time that the investment would be made over the next two years and was for its gas and electric vehicles.
President Donald Trump signed executive orders in April to relax some of his 25% tariffs on automobiles and auto parts, a significant reversal as the import taxes threatened to hurt domestic manufacturers.
Automakers and independent analyses have indicated that the tariffs could raise prices, reduce sales and make U.S. production less competitive worldwide. Trump portrayed the changes as a bridge toward automakers moving more production into the United States.
The tariffs ordered by Trump are hitting the entire auto sector, which sends vehicles and parts across the northern and southern borders of the U.S. repeatedly as they are assembled. The Center for Automative Research says that a uniform 25% tariff on all trading partners would have an increased cost of $107.7 billion to all U.S. automakers and an increased cost of $41.9 billion for the Big Three automakers in Detroit, Stellantis, GM and Ford.
GM reported its financial results a day after Jeep maker Stellantis said that its preliminary estimates show a 2.3 billion euros ($2.68 billion) net loss in the first half of the year due to U.S. tariffs and some hefty charges. Stellantis will release its financial results for the first half of the year on July 29.
Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
‘Lets brace ourselves for uncertainty…': LGT Wealth's Nikhil Advani warns investors ahead of Trump's tariff deadline
The countdown to US tariffs on 1 August has begun! Is this a 'hard deadline' or will Trump postpone implementation yet again? Market volatility in the lead-up to this tariff deadline reflects a mix of apprehension and cautious optimism, with different sectors and regions reacting differently. The S&P 500 is trading at a record high, and this is being driven by a handful of mega tech stocks and bullishness around artificial intelligence. However, certain areas of the technology sector are vulnerable to tariffs as hardware manufacturers and semiconductor producers rely on components from various countries. Industries with deep global supply chains such as automobile manufacturing, heavy machinery and consumer electronics may face increased costs and reduced profit margins, which can lead to stock price drops. For example, General Motors last week blamed tariffs for a $1.1 billion hit to its second-quarter profits, leading to a 7% fall in stock price. Currently, an across the board 10% tariff applies on almost all US imports, except on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and a few other items that are deemed to be critical for US production competitiveness. Baseline tariffs for major trading partners that will come into effect from 1 August are as follows: 30% on the European Union, 50% on Brazil and 26% on India. The tariff situation with China is complex and has seen various changes. For example, in May 2025, the US reduced its tariffs on most Chinese goods from 145% to 30%. The current rate on some Chinese goods is 55%, with additional tariffs paused for ongoing trade talks. Retaliatory measures from trading partners can escalate into a trade war, which would be detrimental to global commerce. The EU states have voted for tariffs of up to 30% on EUR 93 billion of US exports to the EU, to take effect on 7 August. Countries are working against the clock to secure a trade agreement. The US and Japan have announced a trade deal that moves the US import tariff down to 15% from 25%. Terms of the deal include a commitment from Japan to invest $500 billion in the US and open its market to American rice and cars. The US and the EU seem to be closing in on a similar deal that would levy 15% reciprocal tariffs on most EU exports to the US. Indonesia and the Philippines have also announced trade deals with the US. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant has commented that the administration is more concerned with the quality of trade deals, rather than timing of the deals. Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has stated that new tariff rates will come into effect on 1 August, and while negotiations can continue, countries will begin paying the tariffs from that date. The market is weighing the potential for a trade breakthrough against the real and significant risks of higher costs, slower growth, and increased inflation. Let's brace ourselves for uncertainty and potential economic disruption. The author, Nikhil Advani, is the Managing Director of International Business at LGT Wealth India. Disclaimer: The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making investment decisions.
India.com
7 hours ago
- India.com
Meet woman, raised by widowed mother, once didn't have money for school trip, now manages company worth Rs 1625369040000; her name is...
Dhivya Suryadevara (File) The story of Dhivya Suryadevara, the Indian-origin CEO of US-based Optum Insight and Financial, is a truly inspirational journey that underscores the power of hard work, perseverance and dedication in changing the circumstances of one's life. Raised by a widowed mother along with her two siblings, Dhivya Suryadevara spent a childhood marred with financial constraints, and at one point didn't even have the money to pay for a school trip. However, her hard work and dedication have taken her to the pinnacle of the corporate world in the United States, where she now leads an 18.8 billion company as its CEO. Who is Dhivya Suryadevara? Born in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Dhivya Suryadevara lost her father at a very young age, and was raised by her mother, who managed her day job at the Syndicate Bank, apart from taking care of three young kids, including Dhivya, at home. After completing her schooling, Dhivya earned a degree in Business, Finance and Economics from Madras University, and later completed CFA and CA courses. At 22, she moved to US and completed her MBA at the prestigious Harvard Business School, and then began her career at PwC. Later, Dhivya Suryadevara interned at the World Bank, and then joined UBS Investment Bank as an Associate Director. However, her first major professional success came in 2005, when she joined General Motors (GM), the largest carmaker in the US. Dhivya worked at GM for over 16 years, and during her tenure, rose from Senior Financial Analyst to become the first woman Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the company in its 110-year history. After leaving GM, Dhivya Suryadevara joined Stripe– a multinational financial services and software major– as its CFO, and in March 2024, she moved to Optum Insight & Financial as its CEO. Who Dhivya Suryadevara credits for her success? In an interview, Dhivya Suryadevara credited her remarkable success to her mother, who did everything in her power to ensure that her three children received the best education, despite the family's financial hardships. 'My mother had to raise three children alone. It is difficult to do this especially in India. She left no stone unturned in our education. She had a lot of expectations from us and this motivated us to do better. We learned that nothing comes easily. You have to work hard to get what you want,' she said. Asked about her experience of moving to the US, Dhivya said it was difficult at first because of the vastly different culture and the fact that she had little money to pay for anything, including a college trip. 'It was very difficult. I was far away from home and it was definitely a culture shock for me. I did not have much money at that time. I could not afford to go on a college trip. Everything was funded by student loans which I had to repay. So, there is a different kind of pressure on you to find a job,' the 42-year-old said. What's Dhivya Suryadevara's net worth? According to various media reports, Dhivya Suryadevara has an estimated net worth of about $20 million, which is quite incredible considering her humble background, and is a testimony to her hard work, professional skill and dedication.
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Indian Express
Japan's big trade win with US on auto offers some cues for India, others
For India, the world's largest rice exporter, the recent US-Japan deal offers a somewhat cautionary tale on agri access in the context of its own negotiations with the Americans for a bilateral trade pact. At the same time, it is increasingly becoming clear that the Japanese negotiators managed to upstage their American counterparts by getting an immensely favourable deal on automobiles, even as they dangled the agri market access concessions offered by Japan and Tokyo's investment pledges as distraction the entire time. This could offer a template for others negotiating with the US for deals, including India. Under the US-Japan deal, which US President Donald Trump referred to as 'the biggest deal ever made', the Americans have agreed to impose 15 per cent reciprocal tariffs, compared to the 25 per cent the US had threatened earlier last week. While most of the focus of the US-Japan deal has been on how Washington DC managed to get market access for American agricultural products, including politically sensitive items such as rice, what the Japanese managed to wrangle out is the best possible deal for its auto sector in the given circumstances. According to the final deal, Japanese automakers would face a 15 per cent tariff now when entering the US market, much less than the global tariff on cars imposed by the US. The Big Three automakers in America – GM, Ford and Stellantis (essentially Chysler) – are now crying foul, because, as they see it, the Japanese now have a clear tariff advantage. After this deal, cars and car parts from Japan can get into the US after paying the 15 per cent tariff while American car makers, most of whom import a lot of cars and car parts fully assembled and manufactured in Canada and Mexico, are currently paying a 25 per cent tariff to import cars and parts into the US market from these two countries. For Japan, the country's automotive industry is a big contributor to its economy, representing about 10 per cent of the country's GDP and nearly 20 per cent of its manufacturing GDP. Automobiles are among Japan's biggest exports and the sector's performance is crucial for the country's overall economic health. And when it comes to Japan-US trade, where Tokyo has a substantial surplus, it is in the auto sector where Washington DC faces most of its trade deficit. The Japanese negotiators made some eight trips to Washington DC over the course of these last six months to get a deal that is favourable to them. While they did end up making a sizable commitment to investment in the US, alongside the concessions on the agri side involving rice and other farm products, the big prize really was auto. And that's where the Japanese negotiators have maxed out the outcomes, which could set the stage for more Toyotas and Hondas flowing into the American market. Interestingly, while the Americans have gone to town describing the deal as a big win, citing both the $550 billion investment pledge and agri market access as wins, the Japanese have maintained a studied silence in the aftermath of the deal, despite immense political pressure on the embattled Shigeru Ishiba government after the bruising electoral setback. Trump's tariff negotiations have largely been about leverage, given how the US President has used tariffs as a way of getting countries to the table on issues such as fentanyl inflows or how they deal with a military conflict. Revenue is yet another strong consideration for the Trump administration going forward, given that the six months that these tariffs have been in place, they have raised $100 billion so far, according to estimates attributed to the US Commerce department. The other stated objective is to bring manufacturing and jobs back to the US: how that plays out is entirely another story. What the Japan deal means goes beyond basic numbers, since there's a personal connotation here for Trump. For a man who is generally fickle with his views, tariffs are an issue where Trump's been uncharacteristically consistent. And Japan was at the centre of Trump's worldview in his early years when the American businessman was still formulating his views on policy matters such as trade. In 1987, long before he voiced any intention to run for public office, Trump took out a full-page newspaper ad warning that Japan was 'taking advantage' of the US, while pointing to the massive trade deficit between the two countries. Like most things with Trump, this was essentially a personal issue, which likely stemmed from the fact that the real estate developer had, just a few days prior to these ads, lost out on a bid for a grand piano in New York to the representative of a Japanese trading house. His views on tariffs have endured through these years, even though there is very little economic logic to the imposition of large scale tariffs by a country like America. Automakers from Japan, Trump said in that ad, were ripping America off. It's a full circle now, when, ironically, Japanese carmakers seem to be big beneficiaries under a new deal that Japan signed up for under Trump's watch. This is especially so, given the comparative advantage that the Japanese carmakers seem to have now. Over the last quarter of a century, the American cars industry has worked with policymakers to create an integrated supply chain with Canada and Mexico. Some parts of a car sold in the US are made in Canada, others in Mexico, and quite a lot are made in the US. A typical pickup truck made by the big three US auto majors – GM, Ford and Chrysler – moves back and forth across borders because of this integrated supply chain – sometimes up to seven times across the three borders. Now, with tariffs of 25 per cent on both countries, each time an auto part moves, it will get tariffed. The price for an F-150 pickup truck, according to industry estimates, could go up from $10,000-$12,000 for a car that retails at around $50,000. So, now, while the North American car industry will be at a disadvantage given the higher duties on Mexico and Canada, the Japanese car industry can bring in cars and car parts into the US at a much lower tariff. What's even more contradictory is the fact that it was Trump who replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement trade deal between the US, Canada, and Mexico with the new USMCA deal during his first term in 2018-19. Trump's imposition of tariffs on Canada and Mexico now flagrantly violate his own USMCA, and highlight his disregard for negotiated trade agreements. For New Delhi, which is currently engaged in extended negotiations with the US, the manner in which Japanese negotiators dangled multiple carrots, including the phased-out investment pledge and concessions on agri products, to win an evidently favourable deal on auto offers some lessons in negotiating. The India-UK trade deal too has some takeaways for the US deal. The UK deal showed that Indian negotiators are willing to offer concessions in areas such as agriculture and public procurement – contentious political issues where there is scope to give with factoring in some safeguards. With the US, talks have faced hurdles over agri products, with the Americans pushing for market access for genetically modified products such as soya and corn, along with broad-based access across sectors. The willingness to offer concessions on some issues that have traditionally heralded red-lines for India could mean more leeway to extract concessions on other areas of interest, like Japan managed for its auto sector. While the trade deal with the US is likely to be less focused on sectors and more focused on the headline number unlike the UK deal, India is likely to push for market access in labour-intensive sectors, while trying to ensure a significant tariff differential compared to its Asian peers. Now, if the final tariff deal offered to India by Washington DC is between 10 per cent and 15 per cent, the tariff points offered to the UK and Japan, New Delhi should have reasons to be satisfied. The tariff advantage starts to diminish if the tariff goes over 15 per cent and inches up closer to 20 per cent, as was offered by the US to Vietnam. A transhipment clause, of the kind slapped on Vietnam, could be a problem for India, given that a lot of Indian exports have inputs and intermediate goods in sectors such as pharma, engineering goods and electronics coming in from outside, including China. Also, clarity on the final American duty offer on China is a number that negotiators will be looking at, given the implicit assumption in New Delhi that the Trump administration will maintain a tariff differential. For Indian negotiators, other tariffs, over and above the US baseline tariffs of 10 per cent and the sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminium, is an added complication. Sectoral tariffs such as the 50 per cent on steel, aluminium and copper are already impacting India's exports to the US, and Trump's threat of steep tariffs on BRICS countries over them buying Russian oil is a concern. India has shown some degree of realism in opening up segments of imports that are in areas where the country has been weak or those goods are needed as intermediate goods. That is being seen as a positive step, given India's tariff structure currently has rigidities that include high tariffs on inputs and intermediate goods, which acts as a disadvantage to domestic players. While mobility of workers, which had been a bone of contention as India sought improved access for its services sector amid heightened sensitivities in a post-Brexit UK, both countries committed to some concessions. That could be the case in the negotiations with the US too. While continuing to maintain some regulatory carve-outs, such as in legal services, taxation, and national security, Indian negotiators would do well to secure gains in this area. With the UK, commitments gained by India on professional mobility were largely limited in scope, if one were to leave out the positives of the Double Contributions Convention. Expectations from a US deal could be higher on the Indian side. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
