Ford and Toyota Won't Like General Motors's Q2 Sales Results
General Motors had a lot to celebrate after Q2
Only three major automakers reported year-over-year sales growth in the U.S. during Q2, but their delivery percentage increases don't tell the entire story. Ford experienced the most annual gains during Q2 at 14.2%, followed by Toyota at 7.2%, and General Motors (GM) at 7%. While Ford and Toyota experienced higher year-over-year increases than GM, GM delivered more units throughout Q2 than either of these two companies.
During Q2, GM sold 746,588 units in the U.S., Toyota moved 666,469 vehicles, and Ford logged 612,095 sales. Growth in year-over-year sales remains a crucial metric among automakers, but quarterly numbers are especially relevant right now, given the market uncertainty introduced by President Trump's tariffs on vehicle and part imports. Duncan Aldred, GM senior VP and president of North America, said in a statement: 'The investments we have made in our crossovers, SUVs, and pickups—both gas and electric—along with great execution by our employees, suppliers, and dealers, have made GM the engine of growth for the U.S. industry this year.'
A closer look at GM's Q2 success
GM's electric vehicle (EV) sales rose by more than 100% during Q2 after it became the industry's second-highest seller of the segment last year. Cadillac proved to be intense competition for Tesla as the luxury EV market share leader in Q2. GM's Q2 crossover sales were up a record 16% during Q2 and 23% during the first six months of the year. The automaker also reported a 12% year-over-year sales increase for the first half of 2025, leading the U.S. industry in total and retail sales and outpacing the 4% total market growth estimate. Buick had the most significant first-half sales increase of any GM brand, up 29% with its crossover portfolio.
Chevrolet sales increased 9% during the first half of 2025, with its Equinox SUV leading the way and GMC boasting record Sierra pickup deliveries, placing GM on track toward its sixth year in a row as the industry's full-size pickup sales leader and its 51st year as the full-size SUV leader. While the fleet business decreased by 3% during Q1 and Q2, GM's fleet, Envolve, increased by 10%. In total, GM moved 1.4 million units during the first six months of 2025, with a market share of 17%, representing the industry's largest year-over-year increase.
Final thoughts
Q3 could allow GM's EV sales to make more headway as consumers rush to capitalize on the remaining federal tax credit that expires on September 30. GM's EV sales during Q2 were especially significant given that the overall segment declined annually by 6%. Stephanie Valdez Streaty, senior analyst at Cox Automotive, said: 'The year-over-year [EV sales] decline in Q2 was only the third decline on record, and a sign of a more mature market. The increase from Q1 may well be the start of a rush ahead of the federal incentive phase-out, offering a short-term boost in an otherwise uncertain landscape.' GM also announced in June that it's investing $4 billion in the expansion of gas truck and SUV production, allowing it to more readily meet varied consumer demand between internal combustion engines and electric driving.
Ford and Toyota Won't Like General Motors's Q2 Sales Results first appeared on Autoblog on Jul 21, 2025
This story was originally reported by Autoblog on Jul 21, 2025, where it first appeared.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Fevertree Drinks PLC's (LON:FEVR) On An Uptrend But Financial Prospects Look Pretty Weak: Is The Stock Overpriced?
Fevertree Drinks (LON:FEVR) has had a great run on the share market with its stock up by a significant 30% over the last three months. However, we decided to pay close attention to its weak financials as we are doubtful that the current momentum will keep up, given the scenario. In this article, we decided to focus on Fevertree Drinks' ROE. ROE or return on equity is a useful tool to assess how effectively a company can generate returns on the investment it received from its shareholders. Simply put, it is used to assess the profitability of a company in relation to its equity capital. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. How Is ROE Calculated? The formula for return on equity is: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Fevertree Drinks is: 9.9% = UK£24m ÷ UK£247m (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2024). The 'return' is the income the business earned over the last year. That means that for every £1 worth of shareholders' equity, the company generated £0.10 in profit. Check out our latest analysis for Fevertree Drinks What Is The Relationship Between ROE And Earnings Growth? We have already established that ROE serves as an efficient profit-generating gauge for a company's future earnings. Depending on how much of these profits the company reinvests or "retains", and how effectively it does so, we are then able to assess a company's earnings growth potential. Assuming all else is equal, companies that have both a higher return on equity and higher profit retention are usually the ones that have a higher growth rate when compared to companies that don't have the same features. Fevertree Drinks' Earnings Growth And 9.9% ROE At first glance, Fevertree Drinks' ROE doesn't look very promising. A quick further study shows that the company's ROE doesn't compare favorably to the industry average of 13% either. For this reason, Fevertree Drinks' five year net income decline of 24% is not surprising given its lower ROE. However, there could also be other factors causing the earnings to decline. For instance, the company has a very high payout ratio, or is faced with competitive pressures. However, when we compared Fevertree Drinks' growth with the industry we found that while the company's earnings have been shrinking, the industry has seen an earnings growth of 9.5% in the same period. This is quite worrisome. Earnings growth is an important metric to consider when valuing a stock. The investor should try to establish if the expected growth or decline in earnings, whichever the case may be, is priced in. Doing so will help them establish if the stock's future looks promising or ominous. Has the market priced in the future outlook for FEVR? You can find out in our latest intrinsic value infographic research report. Is Fevertree Drinks Efficiently Re-investing Its Profits? With a high three-year median payout ratio of 85% (implying that 15% of the profits are retained), most of Fevertree Drinks' profits are being paid to shareholders, which explains the company's shrinking earnings. With only a little being reinvested into the business, earnings growth would obviously be low or non-existent. In addition, Fevertree Drinks has been paying dividends over a period of at least ten years suggesting that keeping up dividend payments is way more important to the management even if it comes at the cost of business growth. Existing analyst estimates suggest that the company's future payout ratio is expected to drop to 54% over the next three years. Accordingly, the expected drop in the payout ratio explains the expected increase in the company's ROE to 16%, over the same period. Conclusion In total, we would have a hard think before deciding on any investment action concerning Fevertree Drinks. Because the company is not reinvesting much into the business, and given the low ROE, it's not surprising to see the lack or absence of growth in its earnings. Having said that, looking at current analyst estimates, we found that the company's earnings growth rate is expected to see a huge improvement. To know more about the company's future earnings growth forecasts take a look at this free report on analyst forecasts for the company to find out more. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
NBC News
4 minutes ago
- NBC News
What to know about Donald Trump's executive order on NIL and college sports
President Donald Trump on Thursday issued an executive order titled 'SAVING COLLEGE SPORTS,' a directive aimed at regulating the rapidly shifting landscape in college sports. Since 2021, college athletes have been able to profit off their name, image and likeness after a Supreme Court ruling on antitrust laws went in favor of the athletes. In the ensuing years, players have been able to get paid legally via third parties, and after a separate lawsuit was settled in June, athletes can now also be paid directly by their schools. The NIL era, however, has raised a variety of concerns for both schools and athletes, with issues ranging from maintaining equality in women's sports to a potential push for collective bargaining between athletes and their respective colleges. Trump's order, which is not itself a law, essentially calls for an implementation of policies that are widely viewed as NCAA (as opposed to athlete) friendly. Here's what to know. What exactly does Trump's order call for? Trump's order said that, in the wake of legislation that allows athletes to be compensated and transfer freely between schools, 'the future of college sports is under unprecedented threat.' The EO goes on to say that the recent rulings have unleashed 'a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports' and more guardrails are needed to ensure a fairer system. So, what would Trump like to see? The order calls for the following: Prohibiting third parties from engaging in direct 'pay-for-play' payments to athletes, which the order deems improper. Currently, school boosters can sign players to multimillion-dollar NIL deals that are widely viewed as a workaround to directly paying players to attend a certain university. Trump's order says players should only earn 'fair market value' for a legitimate service to a third party, such as a brand endorsement. Advocates for athletes say this would impose a cap on their earnings. Protections on scholarships for nonrevenue sports, requiring schools to maintain or increase scholarships for such sports, depending on the revenue of their athletic departments. This would be a measure largely to protect Olympic sports and women's sports from potential decreases in funding as more money goes to revenue-generating athletes in football and basketball. A clarification from the National Labor Relations Board on the employment status of athletes 'that will maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.' During the Biden administration, the NLRB issued a memo stating that certain college athletes should be considered employees. That memo was rescinded earlier this year, and now Trump is seeking to codify athletes as non-employees, which would almost certainly take away any opportunity they have to collectively bargain with schools. Protections for the NCAA from lawsuits by athletes. The NCAA has been lobbying for these protections for many years, as many of the big changes in college athletics have come as the result of antitrust lawsuits. Protections against further court cases would allow the NCAA to enforce its rules on issues such as transfers and third-party payments without fear of them being upended by another court ruling. What does this all mean for the immediate future? Nothing immediately. Trump cannot unilaterally impose rules in this scenario. His executive order also comes as the House tries to push through the SCORE Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that is aligned with much of Trump's executive order. The SCORE Act has moved through committee and can be debated on the House floor when representatives return from recess in September. Meanwhile, there has been a bipartisan push in the Senate to introduce its version of legislation regarding college athletes, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., among those involved. 'The many challenges facing college sports are important and complex,' Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a statement to NBC News. 'The Executive Order recognizes the importance of preserving Olympic sports, women's sports, and maintaining competitiveness for big and small schools alike. I'm disappointed that the President abandoned his earlier plan for a commission to examine all the issues facing college sports. We need a sustainable future for college sports, not a future dominated by the biggest and wealthiest schools who can write their own rules without accountability.'
New York Times
4 minutes ago
- New York Times
Harvard's Powerful Leader Faces Intense Scrutiny in Trump Fight
In the high-stakes negotiations between the Trump administration and Harvard University, the White House and a growing number of people at Harvard have at least one shared goal. They want Penny Pritzker, the head of the university's top governing board, out. Ms. Pritzker holds a powerful post as the leader of the Harvard Corporation that in normal times is also a quiet one. The corporation is the equivalent of a board of trustees at any other academic institution and is mostly focused on fund-raising, strategy and picking the university's president. But for Harvard, these are far from normal times. The government has cut billions in federal funds to the school and tried to ban international students — a quarter of its enrollment — from attending. The school has sued the government twice in the last several months, even as it tries to negotiate an end to a conflict that has forced painful belt-tightening. As Harvard's problems pile up, Ms. Pritzker's leadership has been called into question. On campus, prominent professors and donors are wondering whether she should go. And two Trump administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity as delicate negotiations continue, say the hope is that the government's pressure campaign on the school will lead to her ouster. Ms. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, has donated $100 million to Harvard for a new economics building. She has close ties with the Democratic Party and her family has a history of bad blood with President Trump. She has also faced criticism over her handling of the controversy surrounding Harvard's former president, Claudine Gay, who resigned under pressure last year. Now, some people tied to the school say that Ms. Pritzker has become a distraction that seems to be hurting rather than helping the university's efforts to beat back an onslaught of Trump administration attacks. They suggested that she could be a concession whose resignation could help Harvard's efforts to negotiate with the White House, if she would only agree to leave. A dozen people, including friends, professors, alumni, major donors and Trump officials, discussed Ms. Pritzker's role and future at the school. Several asked not to be identified because they worried about endangering Harvard's talks with the administration. One administration official said that Ms. Pritzker's resignation has not been explicitly included as part of any offers. But unofficially, Trump officials have discussed a desire for her to leave to show Harvard's commitment to making changes. Some argued that there was a legitimate need to add fresh attitudes and skills to the board, though they conceded that such a move could be misconstrued as capitulation. 'The corporation should be accountable for some of the problems that have existed, and the chair of the corporation would be a natural person to be subject to turnover at a time like this,' said Dr. Jeffrey Flier, a former dean of the Harvard Medical School who has criticized both the Trump administration's interference in higher education and universities over free speech concerns. A prominent academic at Harvard suggested that Ms. Pritzker's departure would be a small price to pay. Unlike many of the demands that the Trump administration is making of the school, losing the board's leader would not compromise Harvard's academic freedom. But since the corporation is a self-appointing body, any change in its membership would have to come from within. Ms. Pritzker also retains many supporters at Harvard, who say she has led the school well through multiple crises. They point to her business and political expertise, and argue that a more reserved leadership style is what the post calls for at the moment. Jason Furman, who worked with Ms. Pritzker at the White House during the Obama administration and is now an economics professor at Harvard, said he believed the Harvard community is enthusiastic about its current leaders. 'A year ago, there were many people that were upset with the leadership, and now people are just generally quite unified,' he said, and 'quite reflexively against the idea that you would do something for Donald Trump.' Ms. Pritzker, 66, declined to be interviewed for this article. A spokesman for Harvard declined to comment. As the battle between Harvard and the White House enters what could be its final phase, Ms. Pritzker is in the fray, a close business associate said. She talks to Dr. Alan Garber, Harvard's president, every day, sometimes more than once a day, this associate said. And as the head of a corporation with the power to hire and fire the president, Ms. Pritzker has an outsize influence. Friends said she was unlikely to give in. Vivian Riefberg, who has known Ms. Pritzker since they met as freshmen at Harvard in the late '70s, said Ms. Pritzker cares most about 'seeking constructive engagement.' 'Some people like a fight. She likes to make a difference,' said Ms. Riefberg, a professor at the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. Ms. Pritzker was elected to the 13-member corporation in 2018. The members are quaintly known as 'fellows,' and she became the first woman to lead the board in 2022. Her first major decision was picking Dr. Gay as Harvard's president. Ms. Pritzker stood at the new president's side throughout the inauguration ceremony in 2023, beaming through her blocky glasses as speakers celebrated Dr. Gay as Harvard's first Black president. Three months later, Dr. Gay's tenure ended. She had flubbed a question in a congressional hearing about whether calling for genocide against Jews broke Harvard's rules. Dr. Gay was also accused of plagiarism. In the firestorm that followed, Bill Ackman, the Pershing Square hedge fund founder and a Harvard graduate, criticized Dr. Gay — but also Ms. Pritzker, for not doing due diligence before hiring her. After Dr. Gay resigned, Mr. Ackman called for Ms. Pritzker and other members of the corporation to follow suit. In May, Mr. Ackman again posted a call for Ms. Pritzker to step down. While she might be 'a fine person,' he wrote on X, 'she has led Harvard during a period of substantial damage to the institution's global reputation, the explosion of antisemitism on campus, and dramatic deterioration in Harvard's financial wherewithal.' Harvard has defended itself vociferously, though its leaders have said that they recognize that there are problems with antisemitism on campus and have been working to address them. The Trump administration has taken note of Mr. Ackman's criticism, however. Linda McMahon, the education secretary, sent a letter to Harvard saying that it should no longer seek grants from the government 'since none will be provided.' In her letter, Ms. McMahon cited Mr. Ackman. She also wrote, 'The Harvard Corporation, which is supposed to competently and professionally manage Harvard's vast academic, financial and physical resources, is run by strongly left-leaning Obama political appointee Penny Pritzker, a Democrat operative, who is catastrophic and running the institution in a totally chaotic way.' Many at Harvard believe that being so conspicuously branded as allied with one political party has become a handicap for Ms. Pritzker. She was the national finance chair of Barack Obama's first presidential campaign, and secretary of commerce in the second Obama administration. Her brother, JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois, has established himself as an outspoken critic of Mr. Trump and is expected to run for president in 2028. Ms. Riefberg, her college friend, said Ms. Pritzker was able to transcend partisan politics. She recalled that she had been almost unanimously confirmed by the Senate as commerce secretary in 2013. (Senator Bernie Sanders was the lone dissenter.) The Pritzker family's conflicts with the president precede the current battle between Harvard and the government. Her uncle, Jay Pritzker, who established the Hyatt hotel chain with Ms. Pritzker's father, feuded with Mr. Trump over a hotel deal made in the '70s. 'There I was, at the lowest point of my financial life,' Mr. Trump told The New York Times in 1993, 'and they tried to force me to default or sell my hotel cheaply.' Mr. Trump promised to exact revenge. 'I always said, the first time I got back on my feet, the Pritzkers would be the first people I'd go after,' he told The Chicago Tribune in 1993. (Mr. Trump later sold his interest in the hotel.) As Mr. Trump attacks Harvard, alumni, faculty and donors have suggested that convincing taxpayers of Harvard's importance in American society has never been more urgent. But some complain that Ms. Pritzker has stayed out of the public eye. One alumnus who attended a dinner with her at the Harvard Club in New York remembers that she let Dr. Garber do all the talking and said little beyond hello, goodbye and thank you. In April, when the Trump administration issued a series of demands of Harvard, including exercising some control over hiring, teaching and admissions, it was Dr. Garber who signed a public letter saying that Harvard would fight. 'An elite institution like Harvard benefits from public support and is vested with public interest,' said Lloyd Blankfein, the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs and a Harvard graduate. 'Leadership and oversight here comes with high profile. Don't take the job if you're not prepared for that. Shyness is not a virtue.' Members of a presidential advisory group on antisemitism remember that Ms. Pritzker did respond after several of them threatened to resign. Beaming into a video meeting from an airplane, Ms. Pritzker, who is a practicing Jew, according to her friends, assured them that their suggestions were being heard. Ms. Pritzker's allies say that it is more effective for Harvard to unite behind one voice, in this case, Dr. Garber. 'She does not pick fights for the sake of fights or headlines or fun and excitement,' said Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts, a Democrat, who got to know Ms. Pritzker during the first Obama presidential campaign. Dr. Furman, the economics professor, said she was acting appropriately in her role. 'You hear from the C.E.O., you don't hear from the chairman,' Dr. Furman said. As head of the board, he added, 'you're not supposed to be the face, but you're supposed to be a very, very key person in shaping the decision.' Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist who has been sharply critical of the Trump administration and urged Harvard to fight back, said Harvard's leadership was perceived by many faculty members to be more attentive to donors and outside interests than to faculty and students. Still, he said, 'I don't think the federal government should be using its leverage to force out the leadership of a private university. That's authoritarianism.' Supporters say she brings her considerable business knowledge to the table, noting she rose to the top in male-dominated industries. Ms. Pritzker, who graduated from Harvard in 1981, is now the head of PSP Partners, a private investment firm, and she is worth $4.1 billion. Harvard's corporation is stuffed with eminent figures from Big Law, big business and elite academia. Perhaps not accidentally, however, the corporation's politics have shifted somewhat. This year, Kannon Shanmugam, who clerked for Antonin Scalia, the conservative Supreme Court justice, replaced Ted Wells, a lawyer and Democratic Party donor. So far the shift has not seemed to help Harvard's case. In recent days, the Trump administration has only escalated its attacks on the school. The fight with the Trump administration has convinced some people at Harvard that its governance model might need radical change. 'It might not be enough for Penny Pritzker to leave Harvard,' said Kit Parker, a bioengineering and applied physics professor on Harvard's Council on Academic Freedom, a group dedicated to supporting diverse points of view. 'It might need to be something much bigger,' he said. He added, 'It's hard to hold any one person responsible for what has happened at Harvard over the last 10 years.' Changing the board, he said, 'might be the one thing they can agree on without anyone losing face.' Kirsten Noyes, Susan C. Beachy and Sheelagh McNeill contributed research. Michael C. Bender and Stephanie Saul contributed reporting.
