GM Expands on Two Fronts—Defense Manufacturing and Energy Storage—Seeking to Break Free from Undervaluation
Claire Weston
General Motors is partnering with Lockheed Martin on weapons manufacturing and with Peak Energy on sodium-ion grid storage — both moves driven by a 6.3× forward P/E that sits far below the S&P 500's 21×, betting its factory floor can earn a higher multiple.
Why is a carmaker getting into weapons?
Per the Wall Street Journal, GM will lend its supply chain and manufacturing capacity to help Lockheed Martin ramp up defense output.
This means → GM is selling production scale, not technology — transplanting auto-grade mass-manufacturing into the defense sector.
GM shares rose 0.7% pre-market to $84.64 on the news; Lockheed dipped 0.1% to $529.90.
How wide is the valuation gap?
GM trades at roughly 6.3× forward earnings, versus about 21× for the S&P 500 — a gap of more than three times.
Operating profit has ranged between $10 billion and $15 billion over the past five years; Wall Street expects $14.6 billion for 2026.
In plain terms = profits are steady, but the market refuses to pay up because "you're just a car company."
What gives sodium-ion batteries a shot against lithium?
GM and Peak Energy will co-develop sodium-ion cells — batteries that swap lithium for sodium, a far more abundant and cheaper element — at GM's Michigan battery lab, with GM retaining exclusive manufacturing rights.
Peak Energy's sodium-ion system requires no active cooling and reportedly cuts storage costs by roughly 20%, while maintaining 99% uptime.
This means → for grid-scale storage, energy density matters less than in EVs — cost and reliability come first, which is the core logic behind the sodium-ion bet.
Where are the rivals?
Tesla Energy deployed 46.7 GWh of storage in 2025, generating $12.7 billion in revenue at roughly 30% margins — far above its vehicle business.
Ford Energy plans at least 20 GWh per year, with deliveries expected by late 2027.
GM and Peak Energy have disclosed no GWh target yet — this reflects a venture still in early R&D, well short of scale.
What ties both bets together?
Weapons reuse the supply chain; storage reuses battery R&D infrastructure — both are ways to extract more value from GM's existing manufacturing base.
In plain terms = GM has the factories and the engineers; now it needs to prove those assets can do more than build cars.
Whether either line can generate meaningful revenue at scale — and convince the market to re-rate the stock — remains the central unanswered question.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.