Abbreviation Index:

BB -- Blackberry
AWS -- Amazon Web Services
IVY -- Intelligent Vehicles Yo. I don't actually know if this stands for anything
QNX -- Quick-Unix perhaps? It's a Unix-like embedded microkernel RTOS (real-time operating system)
EOY -- end of year
PT -- price target
SP -- stock price
EV -- electric vehicle
SoC -- System on a Chip
IoT -- Internet of Things
TL;DR: Blackberry ($BB) is almost daily announcing new partnerships and new clients for their software, including new deals with companies that are just now or just this year launching autonomous vehicles that run on QNX software. The big kahuna of all these deals is BB's recent partnership with Amazon to go 50/50 into BB's software IVY, a scalable cloud-connected software platform designed for intelligent vehicle data gathering and data sharing. With Amazon's Jeff Bezos stepping down, and Andy Jassy filling his shoes, who was the CEO of AWS, BB will have some very firm support behind Amazon's new CEO. BB and Amazon are having a webinar Feb. 23rd about their partnership and IVY, which should be a strong catalyst moving forward. IVY beta earnings are projected to begin impacting BB's Q3 or Q4 earnings beginning in November this year, with IVY fully being integrated around the 2023 timeframe. Through a lot of reading and analysis, I believe BB has a four-tiered business model dating back as far as 2013 when BB's CEO John Chen was hired to begin the massive BB turnaround process. Tier 1 was development of QNX and IVY, lasting from 2013 to today and onward, however, Tier 2 overlaps Tier 1. Tier 2 was customer acquisition, primarily distributing their secure software in QNX, SecuSuite, Spark, and AtHoc. They secured 37 automakers during this time, including 9 of the top 10 automakers, over 106 governments from around the world, including all of G7 governments and 18 of G20 governments, as well as 77% of Fortune 100 companies, including partnerships with Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Sony, XPENG, XPEV, NVIDIA, Intel, Qualcomm, Baidu, IBM, LG, Samsung, and others. Well if they have such an incredible market share, why are they so undervalued? The answer is that QNX was not the end-all-be-all product. It was the base that the rest would be built on. Particularly IVY, which is the real money-maker. Tier 3 is IVY beta, and Tier 4 is IVY distribution and subscription revenue streams. So why is IVY the big deal and not QNX? They are both big deals, but QNX was never designed to be the money-maker. They are charging a one-time fee per vehicle use. There is a bigger goal here, to secure their clients as their customers for the bigger product in IVY. They also need QNX is to be a secure system in order for IVY to be trustworthy and reliable. And it certainly is secure. QNX has ISO26262 certification, as well as US government clearance, NSA clearance, and CIA clearance. The US government uses QNX and Blackberry products. Just let that sink in. That should tell you something about its security. Anyways, IVY will be used in autonomous vehicle level 4 and level 5 communication (note that QNX is level 5 certified... it has a business moat just in its security level and clearance), as well as EV and gas vehicle data collecting and AI-powered data synthesis. See below for more details on IVY. Wrapping up this TL;DR, BB is going to do well this year as IVY unfolds, but will do even better in the next 2-5 years. I have a PT of 25 by EOY and a PT of 80 by 2023 EOY, and a PT of 160+ by 2025 EOY
TL;DR: TL;DR: BB go up, but go slow for now because IVY revenue not here yet, but big fast later. Make big monies, BB is the future tech that Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc will be building upon in the EV and IoT market

FAQs:

1) Why is Blackberry stock price going down?
A: A few possible reasons. One, as of today the whole market is down. BB is connected to overall market swings as most companies are. Two, there may be some market manipulation by bearish financial institutions as there are a lot of calls expiring on 2/19. I would expect that BB SP to be volatile between $11 and $14 between now and then, and to move upwards after 2/19 and especially after 2/23 (Amazon + BB webinar). Three, there are bearish investors who still think BB is a phone company and don't understand the underworkings of BB's business strategy, their software, their patents, or their partners. Their revenue has been affected by coronavirus and has not been particularly phenomenal so far this year.
2) Should I invest now or later?
A: First off, I'm not a financial advisor, these are just my opinions. Invest at your own risk. In my opinion, BB will see a large SP growth by EOY, anywhere from 50% to 150% growth by EOY. While revenue will likely not increase much this year, the partnership with Amazon and news regarding IVY will likely create new floors for their SP much higher than the current SP right now, at around the $12 SP
3) What's stopping competitors from building a similar product and hurting BB's business?
A: There's a lot of reasons why BB has a huge moat right now. One, notice the partners that BB has with QNX. They've got all the big boys working them, aside from Apple and Tesla. Seeing as SpaceX runs on QNX, and seeing that Apple was trying to make a deal with Hyundai that did not go through, I think it is still possible that either Tesla or Apple or both companies could also make a deal with BB to use QNX as their OS system. BB worked to develop their QNX embedded microkernel OS for the last eight years or so. Anyone trying to step into the game now is far too late. Apple has the best chance of all companies, as it has its own OS and Apple knows security very well, but this still requires an entirely new system in order to work in the EV sector. Also, Apple announced recently that they would be developing their own EV, although they did not give much details beyond that statement. The likelihood that they are both working on the hardware and software side of this thing is slim given the large number of difficulties that come with certification as it relates to the cybersecurity software space. Regardless, I would suspect that either Apple or Tesla is the most likely to be competitors in this space, but neither company has successfully completed a certified OS system, particularly for the emerging sector of autonomous EVs. Tesla is currently building a Linux-based system that is having a lot of difficulty in passing certifications such as ISO26262, a struggle that has been ongoing for years now. They may achieve a product that passes these safety regulations and certifications, but the question remains whether this will be in time as the EV and autonomous market picks up speed, and whether competing companies would even be interested in using their product. In fact, any car company is unlikely to develop their own OS software because none of their competitors would be likely to use it. BB is the perfect business to license since it is not competing in the hardware sector for the EV market. This argument can also be used for Apple if they are also building an EV.
4) Why is BB's revenue so low if they have so many customers and partners?
A: QNX has been licensed so far as a one-time purchase, per vehicle or IoT using their software. IVY will be a subscription-based software that also includes a one-time purchase. Thus, BB's revenue streams are somewhat unimpressive currently, but they are playing the long game. If my hypothesis is correct, it is John Chen's goal to lay low as software is developed and customer relationships are built. It's the same with the book market. It's the sequel that makes all the money, not the first book. QNX is just the first book of a series looking to hook in its customers with low costs before hitting 'em with the strong follow up in IVY. Additionally, in order to build a competitive business moat, it was to their advantage to not forewarn any competitors of their involvement and plans. Consider John Chen's work as a CEO in his last business Sybase. Chen worked as the CEO of Sybase for 10 years. For the first 7 years, the SP remained at around $10 a share. Three years later, the SP was at $100 a share. I suspect he is implementing a similar model with Blackberry. Chen joined Blackberry in 2013. BB stock actually dropped for most of the last 7 years, resting at a stock price of around $5. Now BB is at $12 a share. I would not be surprised if BB reaches $50 two years from now.

Now for the details.

Read this for DD on BB's achievements, certifications, markets, QNX products, EV growth, Spark software and clients, BB Radar, software pricing, and BB challenges:
Comprehensive Guide about BB and how it shall take off in coming years

Full List of Clients and Partners:

Blackberry Clients and Partners
Automakers: Honda, Audi, Jeep, Mitsubishi, Ford, Hyundai, Volkswagen, Bentley, Lamboghini, Byton, Mini (cooper), Toyota, Subaru, Fiat Chrysler, Mazda, Nio, BMW, Porsche, Lexus, Kia, Land-Rover, Mercedes-Benz, Buick, Jaguar, Visteon, Skoda, Chevrolet, Nissan, Acura, Continental, General Motors, Baidu, Motional
Other: Denso, Aptiv, Bosch, Panasonic, Harman, Bugatti, LG, Vodafone, Bell, Carahsoft, CACI, Telus, iSec, KPMG, Tableau, Qlik
Major: Amazon, Google, Sony, XPENG, XPEV, Li Auto, NVIDIA, Canoo, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, Qualcomm, IBM, LG, Samsung
Major Investors: PRIMECAP, Hamblin Watsa, Ontario Teachers’ Pension, Vanguard, Harris Associates, ETF Managers Group, Wells Capital, Arrowstreet Capital, Kahn Brothers Advisors, Norges Bank Investment
Governments: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Congo, Croatia, Czech Republic, DR Congo, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Guadeloupe, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marthinique, Mauritania, Mauritus, Mayotte, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Réunion, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, USA, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vatican City, Western Sahara, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Blackberry Current Revenues:

BlackBerry Revenues: How Does BlackBerry Make Money? -- Trefis
This display the biggest bearish argument to BB. Until IVY begins producing new revenue streams, BB is likely to not exponentially increase revenue streams, but only sustain moderate YoY growth

Blackberry Analysis Regarding Infotainment and Google and Ford Deal:

see "Blackberry (BB) Stock News Analysis | What I need to say..." by Financial Live by LEYA on the forbidden video website
The media recently picked out a story that left out a lot of pertinent information, making it seems that BB lost Ford as a client. This is not true. QNX is designed to be a SoC. This means that other operating systems, such as Linux or Android, can be easily added to QNX. It is in fact encouraged. The Ford and Google deal was simply announcing the Ford would be using Android as their infotainment system. I believe that BB was never intended to try and be the predominant entity for all software systems in EVs or IoTs, but the backbone that connects all together, and to protect all components in a secure system. Autonomous EVs and even regular EVs in general would not be possible without a secure system protecting the product, as is true with IoTs. This is also why things like US Fighter Jets run on... you guess it, QNX. Ford is still using QNX. It is simply also now using Android that is running on top of QNX more commentary on this: Analyzing Blackberry Bear Argument - Case No. 1: Ford Deal

Pretty Charts

The New BlackBerry Everyone is Talking About $BB

Facebook Settlement with BB

Image
This is an interesting one to be sure. Facebook was being evil, like the do, and were caught using a number of BB patents. They settled in February, and the day that the settlement was finalized, John Chen (BB CEO) tweeted reminding everyone that BB is used on the ISS
https://twitter.com/JohnChen/status/1358853064153784321?s=20
Well, the connection and speculation here is that Blackberry is going to the moon, and that the settlement is rather significant. Someone else also dug out some information in Facebook's most recent 10-K, specifically a portion for a 'non-cancelable contractual commitment' of an amount of $7500 million dollars. That's 7.5 billion btw. We don't know how big the settlement is, but it is worth noting that BB's entire market cap is 7.5B. I highly doubt that a settlement would reach such lofty numbers, but it could be possible that FB settled for some initial amount of $1B or so, as well as $1B in reoccurring payments over several years. We won't know until March 15th actually, so stay tuned.

Blackberry New Partnerships

Within the last few weeks, Blackberry has announced a stronger partnership with Baidu (China's Google), as well as their involvement with Baidu choosing to use QNX for their autonomous vehicles that will be hitting the road, as early as this year and next. BB has also announced their involvement with Motional, a joint venture between Hyundai and Aptiv, which will use QNX for their autonomous vehicles. Motional will be partnering with Lyft to use autonomous vehicles to begin serving customers and will be deploying their vehicles in 2023. It was also announced that QNX will be working with AOSP (Android Open Source Project), as well as announcing yesterday that QNX Hypervisor 2.2 is now released, which is what allows Android and Linux to run on top of QNX.
A sum-up of all the recent news on $BB

BB's Technical Page on QNX Security

Link
Very technical. But cool stuff.

Rumor: Blackberry Buyout? Here's why that's not happening:

Just read this post. It's quite revealing:
Great Day for BB despite stick dipping.
TL;DR: Amazon could have easily bought BB. Why didn't they? Well, all the big players are interested in this EV and IoT emerging sector. This is the new wave of technology that will dominate the market. First we had the dot.com boom, then the cell-phone and smart-phone market, and now we have the autonomous EV and IoT market. If Amazon were to buy BB, they would have to submit a tender offer. This would be a red flag to all the big players that Amazon were trying to buy up the best security out there. It would be a bidding war that could result in a double-digit multi-billion dollar buyout. It was much more to their advantage to create a secret alliance with BB and establish a 50/50 partnership, whose contract includes exclusivity for their use of IVY. Ouch! That's gotta hurt. This is where the importance of QNX lies. BB will be able to pull the rug out from any company that chooses to use something other than IVY. No IVY, no QNX, no EV. It will be a package deal where IVY is the big money maker. All other companies will have to build from the ground up or be forced to license QNX and make their money off of other sectors, such as the infotainment sector, as Google has already begun to do with the Ford deal. When this deal happened, the other big boys wet their pants realizing they needed to get into this space, and fast. Microsoft partnered with Cruise/GM. Apple tried to partner with Hyundai, who was so flattered, they may have initially said yes or indicated so, before realizing that they were already partnered with BB, so it was a no-go. Not sure if that is fact or fiction, but it is an interesting proposal.

Blackberry IVY + AWS Partnership:

Alright, so what's the deal with IVY? Why is it going to be so profitable? Why is IVY the real money-maker, while QNX has been used as the customer-acquisition software tool? Check out this picture:
Image
For one, IVY is designed for real-time communication between EVs or other IoTs. Autonomous driving level 5 requires vehicles to communicate with one another. This is where IVY comes in. IVY connects the different software components of an EV (which presumably are running on QNX), as well as harvesting data on those systems. The data used can be distributed for a wide-variety of uses, including, but not limited to, automakers and suppliers, app developers, consumer services, smart cities, EV charging providers, insurance companies, and vehicle maintenance providers. All of these different sectors will be willing to pay subscriptions for these data services, as well as the automakers and IoT makers who will also be willing to pay subscriptions for IVY. For instance, IVY can help share information between vehicles that will allow for a car detecting ice roads in one area so that other cars using IVY can take a different route. This results in less crashes, which helps the automakers. Insurance companies can use data from all these different data points as well, allowing them an inside-view of their clients. The list of what is possible here is inexhaustible.
As for price points, the subscription models for multiple outside companies wanting to use the data will be create huge revenue streams for BB. With Amazon as a 50/50 partner, and with their resources and strategic management, BB will be poised to be the foundation in security and data sharing for the entire EV, and somewhat of the IoT market (the IoT market has more competitors for sure)
see "Is BlackBerry Stock Undervalued?" by Wealthy Mindset on the forbidden video website
see "Roadmap to $180 a share (BlackBerry Stock)" by Wealthy Mindset on the forbidden video website

Revenue, revenue, revenue...

Blackberry is poised to be an industry leader in EV, government, and IoT security and data sharing with products such as QNX, IVY, Spark, and their other software products. Stock price will likely stay somewhat stunted until IVY revenue begins picking up. It is possible that more announcements and marketing related to IVY will make this growth more rapid. In my opinion, either way BB over the next 5 years will 10x. The question is whether you want to get in now at $12 / share or two years from now at $40 a share or something similar, assuming that either way this stock is going to push for that 100B market cap (it's currently at 7B). There will be bearish analysts that will continue to say that Blackberry is a worthless company until those IVY revenue streams begin to come in. It is also possible that a realistic competitor may emerge within the next three years, such as Tesla or Apple. But if Apple is seeking to create its own EV product, then both companies will have a hard time finding any way to license their software to any other company. It remains possible that Apple and/or Tesla may strikes deals with BB as well in order to be able to produce autonomous vehicles and get a bite of that market share

Really, no competitors?

Well it's called a business moat for a reason. As we have recently seen, QNX is working with AOSP, and so clearly, they are not to be worried about. Tesla is not a true competitor as their OS product is not certified yet, and has demonstrated difficulty in doing so, and additionally, other automakers will not want to benefit their competitors by using their product. A third-party non-auto-maker will be much more desirable. Other companies such as VxWorks, have a lot of to prove both in security and certifications, as well as producing an OS product that is compatible with an emerging autonomous level 5 EV market. QNX's embedded microkernel RTOS is very much unique in this regard. This type of system allows for real-time processing and power distribution, while protecting the system from attacks. In an embedded microkernel system, if one part of the system is attacked, the whole system will not shut down, in layman's terms. This is essential for the security of any high-risk product that is built upon an underlying software that controls that different components of the system.

Conclusion:

All eyes are turned towards Blackberry right now. People want to know what this deal with Amazon will look like, how it will work, what they will focus on, (will Amazon also use this system for a fleet of delivery drones? hmmm), what the revenue streams will look like, what are their projections, what markets and sectors are they targeting, what are their future goals, what will Amazon be doing on their end, etc, etc. The Amazon + BB webinar may answer some of those questions, or maybe they won't. Time will tell (Feb. 23rd, specifically -- here's a link to sign up and watch: Next-Gen Vehicle Architectures Unlock Unprecedented Opportunities for Automakers). Also look out for that FB settlement numbers on March 15th, and Q4 earnings March 31st. I don't expect Q4 earnings to be particularly interesting unless they include the FB settlement numbers. Could those numbers instead be put into Q1 earnings for 2021? Possibly.
Initially IVY beta is expected to begin being released late this year. I will also be looking forward to see how Apple and Tesla respond in the coming months. Ultimately, BB is a long-term play, but is poised to dominate this emerging industry with the partnerships and security focused software they have secretly been building. Now if only the could do something about their logo, some rebranding would be nice...
This is not financial advice, just my own opinions. I am not a financial advisor nor a professional. I own 14k shares in Blackberry, as well as options (10x 8/17/21 20c BB). Do your own DD and fact check me as well

• Company: European Metals
• Industry: Lithium/Tin Resource
• Location: Czech Republic, on the border of Germany
• Flagship Product: Cinovec Lithium/Tin Project
• Areas of Focus: Lithium/Tin Mining
• Ticker: $ERPNF (Nasdaq International), $EMHLF (OTC), $EMH (LSE/ASX)
• Share Price: $0.92 ($ERPNF),
• Market Capitalization: $147.27 Million
• NPV: $1.1 Billion
• Float: 113.36M
• % Held by institutions: 14.3%
• % Held by insiders: 25.22%
• Average Volume (3 month): 33.15k ($ERPNF)
• Investor Presentation: Link
• Financial Reports: Link
• Research Reports: Link

—————
LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM TRADE SUMMARY

• Long Term Speculation: As the largest hard rock lithium resource in Europe, European Metals is poised to become a leading lithium resource. Europe is the second largest EV market in the world, and recently superseded China as the global driver of electric car sales in 2020. The demand for lithium is a major bottle neck for battery manufacturers, and the demand is expected to double by 2024. Based on this information, and that which follows, European Metals is a compelling long term speculation with the potential for significant returns. For these reasons, I am holding my main equity position for the foreseeable future.
  
• Short Term Trade: European Metals is expected to announce an off-take agreement during Q1 of 2021. The EV and lithium industries are among the most popular investment and trading assets on the market. Lithium resource companies that are similar to European Metals, such as $PLL and $LAC, have demonstrated significant price movement (280%-450%) after announcing off-take agreements or significant milestones. As a result, it is expected that European Metals will experience a similar affect after it announces the first of many off-take agreements. For these reasons, I am temporarily increasing my position by a significant margin, with the plan to unload this portion of equity after a sharp increase in price and volume, following any major announcements.
  

—————
CRITICAL HIGHLIGHTS

• 1. European Metals operates the Cinovec Lithium Project, the largest lithium resource in Europe.
• 2. Estimated project life of 20+ years, with a minimum of 25,267 t/a lithium hydroxide or 22,500 t/a lithium carbonate annual production.
• 3. European Metals is partnered with, and funded by, CEZ, a multibillion dollar, state-owned energy company.
• 4. On January 4th, 2021, European Metals hired Lincoln Bloomfield as a non-executive director. Bloomfield is an American diplomat, former national security advisor, and a world renowned expert on foreign affairs.
• 5. The Cinovec Lithium Project includes significant by-products, including tungsten, rubidium, scandium, niobium, tantalum, and potash.
• 6. European Metals is supported by EIT InnoEnergy SE, the principal facilitator of the European Battery Alliance, a strategic clean energy initiative launched by the European Commission.
• 7. As the most strategically located lithium resource on the planet, the Cinovec Lithium Project is surrounded by many of the world’s leading EV and chemical manufacturers, including Tesla, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Porsche, LG Corp, Samsung, BASF, Microvast, Northvolt, and CATL.
• 8. Europe is the second largest EV market in the world, and is expected to overtake China this year.
• 9. European Metals expects to announce an off-take agreement during Q1 of 2021.
• 10. When emerging lithium resource companies announce off-take agreements or major milestones, they experience significant price action. Piedmont Lithium ($PLL) surged 450% after announcing their agreement with Tesla. Lithium Americas surged 280% after announcing advancements at the Thacker Pass Project in Nevada. Core Lithium surged 390% after their off-take partner, Sichuan Yahua, announced a supply deal with Tesla.
• 11. The European Raw Material Alliance (ERMA) has stated its ambition is to have 80% lithium supply sourced locally, and it expects Europe’s need for lithium to increase by 60x by 2050.
• 12. Rock Tech Lithium plans to build a lithium refinery in Germany, north of the Cinovac Lithium Resource, and it has attracted investing support from notable billionaires, including Peter Thiel.

—————
COMPANY OVERVIEW
European Metals is an Australian, UK, and American (OTC/Nasdaq International) listed mineral exploration and development company. Their primary resource is the Cinovec Lithium/Tin Project, Europe’s largest hardrock lithium resource. It’s located in the Czech Republic, approximately 100 km northwest of Prague, on the border of Germany, and central to several of the worlds leading EV and chemical manufacturers, including BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, Volkswagen, BASF, Microvast, Northvolt, and BMZ Group.
—————
MANAGEMENT / LEADERSHIP / DIRECTORS
To support a world class resource, European Metals is building a world class management team.
European Metals is lead by Executive Chairman, Keith Coughlan, a thirty year funds management veteran. In addition to his work at European Metals, Mr. Coughlan has held director positions at oil, gas, and mineral exploration companies, such as Calidus Resources, Southern Hemisphere Mining, and Doriemus PLC.
The Executive Director, Richard Pavlik, is the former Chief Project Manager and Advisor to the Chief Executive Officer at OKD, a major coal producer in the Czech Republic. In addition, Mr. Pavlik served as a Project Analyst at Normandy Capital, and as Chief Engineer and Head of Surveying and Geology at New World ResourcesHe holds a Master’s Degree in Mining Engineering, and has over twenty five years of industry experience in the Czech Republic.
Metallurgical and geological departments are lead by consultants Grant Harman, and Dr. Pavel Reichl, both of whom have significant experience working with lithium and mineral exploration companies, including Talison Lithium, UGL, SNC Lavalin, CleanTeq, Ausenco, and Newmont, the world’s largest gold mining company.
One of two recent and significant additions to European Metals include Lincoln Bloomfield, who was appointed as a non-executive director. Mr. Bloomfield is an American diplomat, who has held policy positions in five previous administrations, including Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, Special Representative of the President, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. He is a cum laude graduate of Harvard College, and a vital asset to European Metals.
The second recent and significant addition to European Metals is Rodney Hooper, a veteran lithium consultant, who previously helped Piedmont secure their off-take agreement with Tesla. Rodney regularly publishes information on key lithium battery issues here.
—————
WHAT IS THE CINOVEC LITHIUM RESOURCE?
The project is located in the Krusne Hory Mountains, which stretch across the border between Czech Republic and the Saxony State of Germany. With a history of successful mineral discoveries, this mining region dates back to the 1300s. By 2017, European Metals had completed 26 diamond holes, for a total of 9,477 meters drilled, which validated existing drilling estimates, and added new lithium grade data.
The Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) was published on June 17th, 2019, and can be found here.
The Cinovec Project hosts a JORC 2012-compliant global Resource of 695.9 Mt. For additional details, please see page two of the pre-feasibility study. The PFS indicates a mine life of 21 years, processing 1.68 Mtpa (Million Tonnes Per Annum) of ore, producing 25,267 tpa of battery grade lithium hydroxide.
—————
WHAT INTERESTING PARTNERSHIPS DOES EUROPEAN METALS HAVE?
European Metals is partnered with, and supported by, several major energy companies, state entities, valuation institutes, and green energy funds.

1. CEZ, a multi-billion dollar, state-owned, leader in power generation and distribution.
2. Thematica Future Mobility, a multi-national, green energy fund, which offers investment exposure to innovative sustainability companies, such as Lithium Americas Corp, Neo Lithium Corp, and HydrogenPro AS.
3. DGWA, is the German Institute for Asset and Equity Allocation and Valuation, and serves as an investor and corporate relations advisor in Europe.
4. EIT InnoEnergy SE, is the principal facilitator and organizer of the European Battery Alliance, an organization launched by the European Commission in October of 2017. This project-driven organization is responsible for building a strong and competitive European battery industry.

—————
WHAT DO THEIR FINANCIALS LOOK LIKE?
For a list of financial and shareholder related reports, please use this link.
For access to European Metal’s most recent annual report, please use this link
European Metals is fully funded to decision to construct, and as of June 30th of 2020, they reported a total equity balance of $18,069,503, compared against the 2019 total equity balance of $12,459,065. They estimate a total capital cost of $482 million to reach completion, with an estimated financing ratio of 70:30 debt to equity, and a 28.8% IRR.
—————
WHAT CATALYSTS OR MILESTONES CAN WE EXPECT IN 2021?

• 1. An offtake agreement is expected in Q1 of 2021. Potential partners include Tesla, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, BASF, Microvast, Samsung, and Northvolt.
• 2. A Nasdaq listing is expected in 2021.
• 3. Listing with the Prague Stock Exchange is expected in 2021.
• 4. A comprehensive feasibility study is expected in Q4 of 2021.

—————
THE SECRET WEAPONS: TIN & TUNGSTEN
In the world of electric vehicles, mobile phones, and clean energy revolutions, tin is the under-appreciated metal. This silvery element is a common component of soldering, tin plating, and specialized alloys. During 2020, the ITA estimated a supply-demand deficit of approximately 5,200 tonnes of tin, and in 2021, they are forcasting a deficit of 2,700 tonnes. These deficits are expected to continue, as the usage of tin begins tracking linerally with the usage electronic goods.
Tungsten carbide is a common substance used in cutting tools, and an emerging substance used in aerospace and defense. “According to Gen Consulting Company, global tungsten carbide market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 5.1% during the forecast period 2020-2026."
In addition to rich lithium deposits, European Metals reports their Cinovec project to contain 262,600 tonnes of tin as well as 91,910 tonnes of tungsten.
—————
TL:DR; An an effort to improve the format, and summarize key points, I’ve created a section for critical highlights. This section replaces the TL:DR section, and can be found at the beginning of this summary report. If you prefer this information in paragraph form instead, please let me know.
—————
Disclaimer
This content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. Investing comes with inherent risks, and all parties should conduct their own due diligence.

EDIT: IF YOU'RE NEW HERE, PLEASE BROWSE THE OTHER POSTS BEFORE COMMENTING ABOUT HOLDING TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE, TOO. THANKS.
Welcome to Lost in the Sauce, keeping you caught up on political and legal news that often gets buried in distractions and theater… or a global health crisis.
TESTING: This week, I'll be doing shorter but more frequent posts. See pinned comment for details.
Housekeeping:

• HOW TO SUPPORT: I know we are all facing unprecedented financial hardships right now. If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
  
• NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive notifications when these posts are done.
  

Ethics, ethics, ethics

Joe Biden’s brother is already putting the president’s ethics commitment to the test by using his relationship to promote business interests. Frank Biden is a senior advisor for the Florida-based Berman Law Group, serving in a non-legal capacity. On Inauguration Day, the firm took out an ad in the Daily Business Review featuring quotes that highlight Joe Biden’s role and his close relationship with Frank.

“My brother is a model for how to go about doing this work,” Frank Biden says in the ad… The ad suggests that the firm hired Frank Biden due to the “Biden reputation for and motivation to engage in philanthropic, social and environmental issues that presented themselves.”

Joe reportedly warned his brother during last year’s campaign that he wouldn’t accept his family threatening the integrity of his administration. “For Christ’s sake, watch yourself,” he cautioned. A friend of the family relayed their conversations to Politico: “What Frank told me is ‘my brother loves me dearly, but if I lobbied, he would cut my legs from underneath me.”
Similarly bringing up ethical questions, President Biden’s son Hunter has a memoir coming out in April. The book is about Hunter’s struggle to overcome drug addiction and was reportedly in the works before his father became a frontrunner in the Democratic primaries. Nevertheless, given the role Hunter’s business dealings played in Trump’s campaign strategy, the book’s release is likely to garner criticism.
Perhaps more reasonably, though, ethics officials are disturbed by Biden speaking about the book as president. In an interview with CBS News, Biden praised his son’s venture, saying: "The honesty with which he stepped forward and talked about the problem and the hope that -- it gave me hope reading it.”

• Edit: It appears that Shaub has since deleted his thread on the matter.

Many of Biden’s appointees came from the opaque world of boutique consulting, raising concerns that their former corporate clients could hold sway over their decisions in government. Secretary of State Tony Blinken founded the secretive consulting firm WestExec; DNI Avril Haines was a principal at the company and Press Secretary Jen Psaki served as a senior advisor. Other officials from the consulting world include National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan - who worked for Macro Advisory Partners representing Uber in labor negotiations - and U.N. Ambassador nominee Linda Thomas-Greenfield, from the “commercial diplomacy firm” Albright Stonebridge Group.

Because its staffers aren’t lobbyists, they are not required to disclose who they work for. They also aren’t bound by the Biden transition’s restrictions on hiring people who have lobbied in the past year… "They're not necessarily making a lobbying contract or doing the direct work of what would be defined as lobbying under the [Lobbying Disclosure] Act, so they don't have to file lobbying disclosure reports," said Delaney Marsco, ethics legal counsel for the Washington-based nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. "So that's a problem. That's a loophole."

In a break with former Democratic presidents, Biden will not wait for the American Bar Association to vet judges before nomination. The tradition, which stretches back to the Eisenhower administration, has served as a way to ensure that judges are qualified for a lifetime position. Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump were previously the only administrations to submit nominees without input from the ABA.
Liberal advocacy groups have praised Biden’s decision, citing a perceived bias against women and people of color in the ABA’s rating system. Christopher Kang, a former Obama aide now with Demand Justice, told the New York Times that the ABA committee is “well-intentioned” but “must not be allowed to act as an obstacle to diversifying the bench.”
Despite signing three executive orders to begin rolling back Trump’s immigration policies, advocacy groups are urging the president to move faster. Asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable during the pandemic, trapped in slum-like camps south of the border. Perhaps their best chance at relief is the termination of Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols, a program that sent over 60,000 asylum seekers to Mexico to wait for their U.S. court hearings. Biden signed an executive order mandating a program review, but it is unclear how long the process will take and what the resulting policy would look like.

Cleaning house

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin fired all members on 31 of the Defense Department’s advisory boards and suspended the operation of 11 others pending review. The move is aimed at removing last-minute Trump appointees like Anthony Tata, who once called former President Obama a “terrorist leader”. It does not, however, apply to those appointed to the military boards of visitors. During the final days of his administration, Trump named Kellyanne Conway to the Air Force board and Sean Spicer and Russell Vought to the Naval Academy board, among a host of other loyalists.

“There is no question that the frenetic activity that occurred to the composition of so many boards in just the period of November to January deeply concerned the secretary and certainly helped drive him to this decision,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said.

Last week, Biden fired four people Trump appointed to the council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an important independent agency that reviews federal regulations and functions. One of those ousted, Roger Severino, filed a lawsuit to challenge the president’s power to remove him from the position. Severino previously served at Trump’s DHS where he weakened protections for abortion and LGBTQ health care. Adding to his far-right pedigree, before serving in government Severino worked at the Becket Fund, a religious liberty legal group, and the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society for the Heritage Foundation.

Republicans have discovered that they can “launder conservative ideas through this government agency,” [an individual who works closely with ACUS told Slate], giving these ideas “a nonpartisan, government-approved sheen” that they don’t deserve.

Biden also forced out all ten Trump-appointed members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP), receiving the resignations of eight and firing the remaining two. The FSIP, which is responsible for resolving disputes between executive agencies and federal unions, has been hobbled for years by Trump’s anti-labor members.

Tony Reardon, national president of the National Treasury Employees Union: “The FSIP is supposed to be comprised of members who are qualified, experienced, fair and neutral. The Trump-appointed panel was none of those things, and its record of nearly always siding with agency management, notwithstanding the record before it, proved its bias.”

Cabinet votes and delays

As of Sunday night, the Senate has confirmed just five of Biden’s 15 core cabinet members. By this time in Obama’s presidency, he had 11 confirmed members; W. Bush had all 15; Clinton had 14. The slow pace of confirmations is likely to get even worse as the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump begins on Tuesday.

• Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has voted against every Biden nominee so far - six including the five core cabinet members and one cabinet-level position (DNI). Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Mike Lee (R-UT) have each voted against five nominees.

Merrick Garland, Biden’s nominee for Attorney General, still has yet to even receive a hearing amid delays instituted by former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Five of the six previous presidents had a confirmed Attorney General by this point in their administration; according to an analysis by the Washington Post, the median wait time for confirmation has been 12.5 days.
Last week, outgoing Judiciary chair Graham denied incoming chair Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) request to schedule Garland’s confirmation hearing today, Feb. 8, before the impeachment trial is slated to begin. Due to former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s threat to filibuster the power-sharing agreement with Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, Republican chairs maintained control over the committees for more than a month into the new Congress. The two sides reached and approved a deal on Wednesday, transferring control of the Senate.

“A one-day hearing as you are proposing the day before the impeachment trial of a former president is insufficient,” Graham (R-S.C.) said in a letter to Durbin. “Democrats do not get to score political points in an unprecedented act of political theater on one hand while also trying to claim the mantle of good government on the other.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Ted Cruz (R-TX) delayed a voted on U.N. Ambassador nominee Linda Thomas-Greenfield last week, hoping to push the full Senate vote back until after the impeachment trial. Cruz believes that Biden’s nominees have adopted a more conciliatory tone toward China compared to the Trump administration. Specifically, he cited “concerns” about a 2019 speech Thomas-Greenfield gave at a Chinese-funded institute in which she expressed hope that both China and America could be positive forces in Africa.
Senate Republicans have also been delaying a hearing for HHS nominee Xavier Becerra since Democrats first started the process in December 2020. Last month, McConnell expressed his opposition to Becerra, tying him to Obamacare’s contraception mandate and highlighting his opposition to the conservative idea of religious liberty. Congressional aides have also outlined a plan to blame Becerra for California’s handling of the pandemic.

Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. This entire post represents my personal views and opinions, and should not be taken as financial advice (or advice of any kind whatsoever). I encourage you to do your own research, take anything I write with a grain of salt, and hold me accountable for any mistakes you may catch. Also, full disclosure, I hold a net long position in GME, but my cost basis is very low, and I'm using money I can absolutely lose. My capital at risk and tolerance for risk generally is likely substantially different than yours.
I'll cover many things that I think will be generally beneficial for newer traders and investors first, but if you're just looking for my current observations on GME, write about it and the end, so feel free to skip the wall of text in the middle if that's what you're here for :).
One thing I would suggest for newer traders, particularly following the Robin Hood fiasco, is to transition to a more powerful brokeplatform. As I've mentioned a few times, I use TD Ameritrade's thinkorswim platform (see very recent review here). They don't pay me to promote it or anything, other than that I can say that my portfolio performance has been greatly enhanced by the capabilities the thinkorswim platform provides.
I've gotten many questions and comments requesting guidance on educational materials. I haven't responded because I am honestly not the best person to ask about that. I will say that the resources listed in this sub (to the right of the list of posts) look to be fairly comprehensive and excellent in quality.

Awareness, Ideas, Thesis, Due Diligence

Most common question I got since my last post about my process for identifying trading and investing opportunities.
At a high level, it all starts with awareness and various ideas about how the world around us is likely to change, and what the market currently anticipates (you will commonly hear phrases like 'X is already priced in', or 'the market is already discounting the fact that', etc.).
Regarding GME, the idea I had was that some struggling retail and other businesses, which had been left for dead by the market, would actually rebound fairly quickly, and perhaps benefit from pent-up demand as the vaccines rolled out.
Ok, that makes sense, but how, in fact, do you take your awareness of the world, take some of those ideas, and actually do something with them?
I tend to start with running a screen (screen as in a sieve, not screen as in what you're staring at right now) in thinkorswim. Other platforms have similar tools. tradingview.com is also excellent for a web-based tool. These allow you to filter stocks by various types of criteria.
As an example, I might start by filtering for:

• Stocks in the retail sector
• Market cap >65mio, <3bn (I find that to be a good range for minimally stable micro cap to smaller mid-cap that is likely insufficiently covered by analysts, and therefore more likely to be substantially mis-rated by the broader market)
• PE < 7 (nothing magic about 7, that's just what I decided to use as a relatively but not ridiculously low PE multiple)
• Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio >1 (i.e. they can cover fixed costs out of earnings, so imminent bankruptcy risk is likely lower). Note that if you're looking ultra deep value you might actually specifically want to find companies at risk of bankruptcy at first glance, to dig through in detail to find ones that look more likely to turn themselves around from the brink for some reason.

Etc. It takes longer to think about what kinds of filters to use than anything else. Once I've set those criteria up, you just run the scan (click a button in thinkorswim) and out pops a list of stocks that match the criteria in less than second. On 2/6/2021 running the above scan gives me 9 names (of which, funny enough, Express--apparently another meme stock short squeeze play based on just looking at its chart for 2 seconds--is one). For those who are curious, the list I got was: ANF (Abercombie & Fitch), GES (Guess Inc), PLCE (children's Place), DBI (Designer Brands inc), GCO (Genesco), CAL (Caleres Inc), CHS (Chico's FAS INC), CATO (Cato Corp), EXPR (Express Inc)
At that point I might quickly check the charts to see what the daily action has been like for the past year, looking for patterns that might be interesting. I'll pick PLCE for this example, since it is breaking out strongly, and looks to be about to smash through resistance of the price on the eve of the pandemic crash. It also apparently blew out its last earnings estimates, which doesn't hurt.
At this point I might proceed to check their SEC filings (lots of insider buying a few days ago, Blackrock increasing stake, recently new CFO, etc.), whale wisdom, company news etc. I found an interesting article from earlier last year that seems particularly positive--they have apparently been a leader in the retail sector in developing their digital omnichannel, with a large and foresighted investment made over 3 years ago, which made them particularly well-positioned to deal with the challenges of the pandemic (at least as far as bricks and mortar retail goes) and indicates very good things about the strategic vision of their management team and board.
It was a ridiculous bargain in November, but may still have room to run even today. Not an endorsement or telling you to go buy some of the stock, but that's my quick read.
With the above 30 minutes of research done, I might make the decision that it warrants further investigation.
As you dig deeper, you start to build a working thesis or theory on how the company is going to deliver performance, or get enough attention from the investment community to warrant a re-rating outsized gains in share price (the bull case). Then you try to find all the reasons and evidence as to why that isn't going to happen (the bear case).
From that point on you iterate as many times as seems prudent to you, depending on how much of your portfolio you intend to invest. Since we're all here already, summarizing and posting your due diligence to this sub seems like a no-brainer. It is very likely you'll get good feedback to help you refine your thesis even further, or perhaps stop you from making what might be a big mistake.
Even if I decide not to make an investment at the moment, at the very least I might add that stock to a watch list, etc. I can actually set thinkorswim to give me an alert if any new companies pop up that match those criteria from now on. This type of feature is pretty common with screening tools. This might happen if, for example, a struggling retailer gets its cash flow in order and crosses from <1 FCCR to >1 FCCR.
A process very much like the above is how I found GME to begin with, and subsequently found my way to Reddit since there was so much GME-related traffic.
The Market is so much bigger than GME, so I highly encourage you to use the knowledge, tools, and techniques you've learned about or been exposed to to explore that bigger picture.

You, The Market, The Trade

If you've found something that looks interesting enough to warrant actually investing, it's worth spending some time to further think about precisely how you think you should do so before you just hit the buy button.
If your thesis and time horizon are longer-dated, then stocks are likely your best bet.
If instead you have a very specific time window in which you're interested, or have reason to believe the stock will move by a certain date, then options might be much more capital-efficient with a higher return (though a much higher risk of greater or total losses as well).
There are many ways to express your ideas or bet on your thesis. In fact, your thesis about a particular company might lead to trades on an entirely different company. If your due diligence on a key industrial company that primarily supplies parts to a certain car company shows major investment in technology and production efficiency, that might also bode well for their customer, and thus warrant an investment there as well or instead. My DD on oil storage capacity getting full back in April led to me taking some speculative positions in oil tanker stocks, as another example.
You may also modify the way you position your trade based on market conditions. Jon Najarian (a CNBC regular who focuses on options trading) recently described how he is transitioning his portfolio using a stock replacement strategy. This means using various options strategies to try to mimic the performance of stocks, but without holding stocks directly. The reason for this is that he is increasingly concerned that we may have a large market correction in the near term, and would like to have a defined limit to potential losses (a feature of many options strategies). I don't know if he's correct, but his moves make sense as a way to address his concerns.
Another thing I've referenced a few times in my post is writing cash-covered puts to essentially bet against the price falling vs betting that the price is going to rise. This comes with the added wrinkle that 'losing' (i.e. the stock price in fact falls below the strike price of the put) comes with the added feature that you end up owning stock. For this reason I commonly use this as a strategy on high-confidence stocks as a way to gain some revenue if the price goes higher, and effectively buy the dip if it goes down first.
How you express your thesis in terms of the specific trades you make can greatly impact the likelihood and magnitude of your returns, and the profile of your risk. Buying the stock you like, while straightforward and with a very intuitive risk/reward profile, may not be the best way forward.
That being said, it is critical that you do understand the trade before you execute, so I would highly recommend practicing via papesimulated trading--which, by the way, is a built-in feature of thinkorswim--before you execute a complex multi-leg option play. Ok, I'll stop shilling for the rest of this post at least :).

Back to GME

On Thursday and Friday what I believe we saw was despair-driven selling compounded by the tug of war between shorts that entered at $150+, and shorts still piling into the trade.
Overall short-side sentiment is more cautious at this point than at the highs despite supposed sentiment among short-side players that GME is a $10 ($20 at best) stock. This is reflected in Ortex data showing utilization dropping below 100% for the first time in months (i.e. shorts are no longer borrowing every single share they can get their hands on), and short interest stabilizing over the past few days. As of Thursday utilization was 69.3%, and free float on loan was at 44.1%. Data for Friday should become available just before Monday market open.
The reason for the above, I believe, is that while shorts seem to believe current prices are still a good entry point, they need to be concerned about getting blown up if a short that entered at the squeeze highs decides to cover and lock in profits. The removal of restrictions on GME by Robin Hood adds another element of risk.
The lower the price, the likelier that deeply profitable shorts cover, spiking price while doing so at the expense of the newest shorts, and the easier it is for retail sentiment to move price, so we're in a sort of very fragile equilibrium until the larger shorts that entered at the higher price points have covered.
I'm not sure how to estimate when this would be, other than to say that the lower the price goes, and the more days that pass, the lower the incremental profit potential and higher accumulated interest cost for the short position holders, so I don't expect them to hold those squeeze high short positions for very long. It is possible that the spike on Friday was a push to cover a fair bit of those positions before the weekend. I would also expect that they will move to cover if somehow momentum seems to turn to the long side, which would accentuate and accelerate the the inflection of momentum greatly.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do with my last 130 shares of GME at this point. It's possible I hold them for a while to watch how things play out for the next few weeks, but I wanted to give everyone reading my post fair warning that going forward I may make an intra-day decision to sell part of all of the position. I will, however, keep open the cash-secured put position, as an automatic entry back into GME at an effective $30 price point if the price is <$40 by April. I may open new positions based on developments as well.
On a different note, I took some time to once again review my thoughts and decisions over the course of the trade. While doing so I was reading back through my posts from 12 days ago (only 12!? feels like it's been at least 3 weeks...) reminding me that I had previously begun building a position in AMC as a value play (via a couple of march $3 strike calls) on rumors of imminent rescue/turnaround financing. I was originally planning to build a better position once I had time to study the potential trade structure better, but instead unloaded them at ~1000% profit for a net ~$2000 gain to concentrate further on GME when I was re-positioning my portfolio, not even realizing at the time that AMC was another stock with a legitimate short squeeze momentum thesis (LOL, I really should pay more attention to social media). I just glossed over the profit as about what I was expecting off the bounce from market rerating the stock from "bankruptcy is imminent" to "holy cr*p, the studios need AMC for their movies to make money!". I should have realized when I was getting so many messages from people asking me to do for AMC what I was writing for GME. I didn't even do any DD on the short interest there(!) and ignorantly advised people that they should only pay attention to the value thesis as I channeled my inner Charlie Munger.
I guess it just goes to show that you only have time to look so far into so many things at once. As I've mentioned previously, trading is a hobby of mine, and something I do in my spare time. I'm not sure if I would have been able to coherently manage momentum trading two stocks that were basically printing money in overdrive at the same time to take full advantage of either trade, especially while writing daily posts. Try to keep that in mind if you choose to pay attention to what I write :).
Also, apologies if you've messaged me and haven't gotten a response. I will sometimes try to respond if I have time (and a good answer), but if you have a good question it would probably be better to either post as a comment or your own post so that you can get a broader range of responses, and also so that the responses can be seen by (and therefore benefit) everyone.
Hope you're having a good weekend, and good luck in the market on Monday!

• Company: Titan Medical
• Industry: Medical Device / Robotic Technology
• Flagship Product: The Enos Surgical System
• Ticker: TMDI (Nasdaq)
• Share Price: $2.63
• Market Capitalization: $215.7M
• Float: 82.02M
• % Held by institutions: 3.29%
• % Held by Public/Other: 96.61%
• Average Volume (3 month): 1.88M
• Recent Daily Volume: 9.98M
• Investor Fact Sheet: Link

I DON’T LIKE TO READ. DO YOU HAVE ANY VIDEOS I CAN WATCH?

• 1. Learn how a single port robotic system works.
• 2. Learn about Titan Medical and their vision for the Enos Surgical System.
• 3. Watch a demonstration of the Enos surgical system.
• 4. Watch an overview of Titan Medical’s third quarter, 2020 update.

GIVE ME A COMPANY OVERVIEW
Titan Medical is a medical robotics company, based in Toronto, Canada, which recently completed an incentive based partnership with Medtronic, the largest medical supply company in the world. Titan Medical’s flagship product is the Enos surgical suite, an ergonomic, single access surgical system, that uses multi-articulated instruments with fluid motion guidance to replicate natural movement. Their workstation is smaller and more mobile than both the Intuitive and TransEntrix surgical suites. With a single port of entry, the Enos requires minimal innervation, resulting in less trauma and scarring than its competitors. They are lead by chairman and CEO, David McNally, a 33 year veteran in the medical device industry, and the co-founder of ZEVEX, an award-winning medical device company.
TELL ME ABOUT THEIR FLAGSHIP PRODUCT
The Enos surgical system, which was rebranded in September of 2020, is a mobile, single access surgical suite, designed in coordination with laparoscopic and robotic assisted surgeons. Unlike other devices, such as the da Vinci from Intuitive Surgical, the Enos was developed as a cost-effective, single-incision system, with reusable multi-articulating instruments, and a small footprint. In addition to traditional operating room procedures, the Enos targets underserved markets, such as a small ambulatory surgical centers. The Enos was designed with an open architecture, allowing it to adapt to future instruments, beyond traditional graspers, hooks, drivers, and scissors. To date, it has completed numerous pre-clinical procedures, including hysterectomies, nephrectomies, cholecystectomies, gastrectomies, splenectomies, and colectomies. For peer-reviewed abstracts, please refer to page 14 of Titan Medical’s investor overview.
WHAT DOES THE MANAGEMENT LOOK LIKE?
Titan Medical is lead by chairman and CEO, David McNally, the founder of Domain Surgical, and the co-founder of ZEVEX, an award winning medical technology company. He is also the co-inventor of over 40 U.S. and international medical device patents. Look at this man. He is the most CEO looking guy that I’ve ever seen. He’s been building successful companies since his early twenties. At research and development, the company is lead by Dr. Perry Genova, PhD, an accomplished biomedical engineering executive. Dr. Genova previously managed Centauri Robotic Surgical Systems, a private company specializing in robotic stereotactic neurosurgery. Prior to that, Dr. Genova was the president and CEO of Oncoscope, a medical device company that was acquired by SpectraScience in 2016.
DOES TITAN MEDICAL OWN ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?
Yes, Titan Medical has 58 issued patents, with 84 patent applications pending.
DOES TITAN MEDICAL HAVE ANY INTERESTING PARTNERSHIPS?
Yes, and for me, this was the most important recent milestone. In June of 2020, Titan Medical entered into an agreement with Medtronic to advance the development of their robotic surgery technologies. The agreement includes a 10 million dollar payment, and an additional series of payments totaling $31 million in exchange for Medtronic’s right to license certain technologies from Titan Medical. Medtronic is the largest medical device company in the world, and they are making substantial efforts to compete with Intuitive Surgical. Medtronic has a long history of billion dollar acquisitions. For example, in 2018, they purchased Mazor Robotics, a medical robotics company that specializes in spinal surgery, for $1.7 billion. If I had to speculate, I believe there is a high probability that Medtronic acquires Titan Medical.
DOES TITAN HAVE THE CAPITAL TO CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT?
Yes, please refer to the paragraph above, which discusses their partnership with Medtronic. You can view Titan Medical’s third quarter 2020 press release here. You can view their $10 million technical milestone press release here.
WHAT OTHER INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE OCCURRED RECENTLY?

1. In addition to their partnership with Medtronic, Titan Medical released a regulatory update, from the FDA, which indicated that the Enos system is appropriate for classification through the De Novo pathway, and confirmed that Titan Medical will file a clarifying pre-submission for Investigational Device Exemption studies.

In view of the FDA’s written response and other information available to the Company at this time, the Company would likely proceed with a De Novo classification request for its Enos system in place of a 510(k) submission. Should the FDA grant the De Novo classification request, the Class II device would be cleared to be marketed.

1. In late 2020, Titan rebranded its surgical system, the SPORT surgical system, to the Enos robotic single access surgical system, so it could better represent its design and capabilities.
   
2. In late 2020, Titan Medical obtained two additional U.S. patents for methods and apparatuses for camera positioning and hand controller Apparatus for gesture control and shared input control in a robotic surgical system.
   
3. In September of 2020, only a few months after Titan Medical inked a deal with Medtronic, we saw a major increase in institutional investment. JP Morgan increased their equity in Titan Medical by 29,600 shares, for a total of 47,000. Bank of America increased their position by 60,900 shares, for a total of 70,605. Two Sigma Advisers, the famed hedge fund which uses AI and machine learning, increased their position by 73,500, for a total of 220,600 shares. Other notable institutional investors include Capital One, Morgan Stanley and Royal Bank of Canada.
   

WHERE DO YOU SEE THIS COMPANY IN THE FUTURE?
At this stage, I consider Titan Medical to be an early iteration of Intuitive Surgical ($ISRG), which is a leader in robotic-assisted systems. Intuitive Surgical developed the famed da Vinci surgical system, which received FDA approval in 2000. Since the release of the da Vinci system, Intuitive Surgical’s stock has appreciated over 8,000%. There is a growing consensus that robotic-assisted companies will become the leading investment class over the next several decades, even outpacing dominant stocks, like Amazon or Apple. Considering the competitive landscape, the previous success of Intuitive, the rapid growth in robotic technology, and Titan Medical’s partnership with Medtronic, it’s reasonable to consider that they might be acquired by Medtronic.
WHY SHOULD I SPECULATE ON TITAN MEDICAL INSTEAD OF INVESTING IN INTUITIVE SURGICAL?
The easiest answer is the best answer. This is a microcap stock forum, and our goal is to discover and speculate on companies before they reach extraordinary valuations. Intuitive is an established company, and the majority of its yield has already been realized. Titan Medical is an early stage, medical robotics company, with a suite of emerging robotics technology, and a series of upcoming triggers both in the near-term, and over the course of the next several months and years. Their incentive based partnership with Medtronic gives them access to capital, engineering, and leadership, ensuring the company can reach full commercialization.
HOW WELL WILL THE SURGICAL ROBOT MARKET DEVELOP?
There are various opinions on this subject, but all reports indicate massive growth over the next 5-7 years, citing CAGR rates between 16-25%. You can read analysis from Emergen Research and MordorIntelligence. The competitive landscape is straddled between a fragmented market, without dominant players, and a consolidated market, dominated by only a few major players. More specific reports, such as the Global Urology Robotic Surgery Market 2020 report, cites Titan Medical as a top player in the robotic surgery market. Historically, and recently, companies like Intuitive, Stryker, Verb Surgical, and Medtronic have made several acquisitions, all in an effort to gain an edge. I believe this reinforces the possibility that Titan Health could be acquired, especially considering the ENOS system has unique engineering elements and patents that existing and developing surgical suites do not have.
WHY ARE YOU BUYING IN RIGHT NOW?
I have been following Titan Medical for over two years now. Previously, I was hesitant to invest due to their financial situation. I wasn't certain if they had enough capital and resources to reach commercialization, but I remained highly interested. Their presentations during 2020 were compelling, especially when they presented at the H.C. Wainwright conference. I was on the verge of opening a position, and when Medtronic announced their deal, I was convinced this is was company I wanted to speculate on long term. Recently, I've noticed an increase in major institutional investments, and the regulatory feedback they have received from the FDA has been great. It creates compelling headlines, and brings us closer to an ultimate FDA clearance. Based on sentiment and activity analytics, I believe that they’re entering the beginning of a hype period. I expect we'll begin to see numerous articles and forum posts about them. For these reasons, and several more, I increased my position on Friday by 6,000 shares.
WHERE ARE WE AT IN THE HYPE STAGE?
Let me preface by stating that I almost exclusively prefer to enter positions before any hype exists. You will make significantly better returns by positioning yourself before the crowd arrives than you will by chasing the hype after it has occurred. Based on market sentiment, and the frequency at which Titan Medical is referenced on YouTube, reddit, and other social media and investment platforms, I believe we’re at the beginning of the bell curve. I use a proprietary sentiment tracker, which I cannot release (it’s not mine), however publicly available systems, such as Google’s trend analytics, show that activity has recently broken a 30 day high. For the first time, over the last 1-2 weeks, I’ve begun to see the first references to Titan Medical on various YouTube channels. However, the activity on Reddit is currently very small, which is good in my opinion, since Reddit tends to be last in the hype cycle. By the time stock picks become hyped on Reddit, most of the short term gains have been had.
WHY DO YOU HAVE SO MUCH CONFIDENCE IN THIS STOCK?
My background is in medicine and human physiology, while my more recent work and education is in financial markets. Although I was not a surgeon, I have an adequate medical background to understand the need and utility of surgical robots, and to be able to accurately interpret research publications. I have a network of friends and colleagues in the industry that have helped me review the company, including several laparoscopic surgeons. However, the majority of my confidence comes from Medtronic. As a partner and investor, Medtronic received exclusive access to the finances and engineering of Titan Medical. They were able to investigate the company beyond what any of us could accomplish, and these investigations resulted in a significant partnership. Based on Medtronic’s success, their history of acquisitions, their extensive resources, and their explicit desire to dominate the robotic surgery market, I believe Titan Medical is a winning investment. Because Titan Medical is in a pre-commercialization stage, the masses have not yet noticed this stock, and I believe that provides an asymmetrical risk due to the enormous potential profit. Even at early speculative stages, I expect this company to have a billion dollar market cap.
THIS SOUNDS INTERESTING. HIT ME WITH SOME CRAZY HYPE. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN AN IDEAL SCENARIO?
If Titan Medical were to achieve a market capitalization similar to Intuitive Surgical, it would reach an equity share price of approximately $1,140/share. This would amount to an estimated 46,500% increase from Titan Medical’s current share price. In the short term, I believe we see major price action based on their Medtronic partnership, their improved financial situation ($10M bought deal offering is expected to close on Jan 29th), their FDA milestones, and their pre-clinical operations. Based on the impressive price action on Friday, and over the course of the previous week, I expect this company to start hitting Reddit, YouTube, and other major forums, which, believe it or not, has been a major indicator for short and long term stock gains.
TL;DR: Titan Medical is a surgical robotics company that developed the Enos surgical suite, an innovative, single-access surgical system, designed in coordination with laparoscopic and robotic assisted surgeons. This company plans to replicate the success of Intuitive Surgical, a surgical robotics company worth over $87 billion, who’s share price has increased over 11,000% since the introduction of their da Vinci surgical system. In addition to their rebranding, Titan Medical recently completed an incentive based partnership with Medtronic, the largest medical device company in the world, which will provide financing, board oversight, and research and development assistance. This is a major milestone for Titan Health, because it ensures their success, either through their own development, or through acquisition. The stock has been on a steady upward trend since the deal was announced, but based on recent volume and online activity, and growing institutional investment, I believe it’s entering an accelerated bullish phase.
POSITION: 12,000 shares of TMDI
Obligatory Edit: 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀

What's Smash?

One of the premier fighting game franchises of all time, Super Smash Bros is a party series published by gaming giant Nintendo which sees characters from their various franchises (alongside several third-party characters) coming together for some family-friendly violence. Beginning with the original title in 1999 for the Nintendo 64, Smash has seen several outings in the years since, such as the iconic Melee for the Gamecube, Brawl for the Wii, the unoriginally named Smash 4 for the WiiU and 3DS, and the most recent title, Ultimate, which released on the Switch in 2018. Ultimate was seen as a huge celebration for the franchise, boasting that EVERYONE IS HERE- all seventy + fighters, ranging from staples of the original game to guest fighters and DLC, were in the launch roster. Helmed by Masahiro Sakurai, Smash is a household name and staple for parties worldwide, with Ultimate being one of the highest-selling fighting games in the world at over 12 million units sold.

What's Fire Emblem?

Fire Emblem is Nintendo's forray into strategy- a turn based fantasy seires that's one of the longer-running staples of the company with its roots in 1990 for the Famicom. Despite a lot of pushing from Nintendo, Fire Emblem failed to take off in the West for many years, with the future of the franchise being uncertain after several successive commercial flops in the 2000s. With the franchise risking cancellation if it failed to find a market, the team made a Hail-Mary pass of epic proportions thanks to Fire Emblem Awakening in 2013- a launch title for the 3DS that finally marked the series getting a foothold in the West. Since then, the series has released three big games: Fates, which wasn't very good due to pulling a Pokemon and cutting the game into three separate releases and having an awful story, Heroes, a free to play mobile game, and Three Houses, which saw the series move to the Nintendo Switch. In Three Houses, you play as Byleth, a mercenary hired to teach one of three classes in a military academy that are all led by House Lords- Edlegard, Dimitri and Claude. Three Houses combined Persona-style time management for social interactions with the tactical gameplay of the series, and was a critical success for the company, selling over 3 million units.

Smash and Fire Emblem's shared history

Fire Emblem and Smash have a tied history, due to Smash being part of the reason the series even began releasing in the West (Fire Emblem had such a small presense before this that a lot of people unironically thought Marth and Ike were original characters made just for the game). Two characters, Roy(Who's also our boi) and Marth, were playable in Melee, with their popularity leading to Nintendo beginning localisation efforts of the other games. Since then, Fire Emblem has gotten consistent additional represetation in each mainline title:

• Brawl added Ike, protagonist of Path of Radiance and its sequel, Radiant Dawn. His massive two-handed sword and battle cry of "GREAT AETHER" made him stand out as a fun battler, with high damage potential but a weak mobility selection to balance him.
  
• 3DS/WiiU would bring back Marth, Ike and Roy, alongside newcomers Robin and Lucina from Awakening and, post-launch, Corrin from Fates as a DLC fighter. The Mii Fighter would also get an outfit themed on Awakening's co-protagonist Chrom as DLC.
  
• Ultimate would launch with all prior Fire Emblem characters as part of the launch roster with a new addition- Chrom making the transition from Mii Fighter to Echo Fighter (the game's term for characters who are moveset clones, in this case for Roy while Lucina was officially made an Echo Fighter for Marth). Ultimate also saw a large collection of music from the series being available alongside three stages.
  

Perhaps one of the largest showings of how tied together the two series are, especially regarding FE getting off the ground in the West, can be seen in the announcement trailer for a re-release of Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light, the first game in the series as part of 30th anniversary celebrations. The trailer shows two young boys playing Melee and wondering where Roy and Marth are from, leading to them discovering Fire Emblem at large.
It's at the launch of Ultimate, before the DLC released, that I'd like to dovetail and cover some of the tensions between Smash and Fire Emblem, alongside the post-launch support Ultimate got.

Smash fans vs Fire Emblem Fans: A Short History

Smash fans and Fire Emblem fans don't get along a lot of the time, it must be said (though Smash fans don't get along with anyone very well). Many Smash fans blame FE as the reason for Smash's roster being stereotyped as "Anime swordboys," due to Nintendo almost entirely drawing from the sword-fighting leads of the series instead of an axe or lance fighter. (Hector from Blazing Blade is often called an example of what a more atypical Smash rep would be due to wielding a large axe). While most of the fighters try and do different things mechanically (Robin is almost entirely a spellcaster for instance, while Corrin can turn into a dragon), that Chrom and Lucina were both moveset clones didn't help this perception.
Many other Nintendo franchise fans aren't happy additionally at how Fire Emblem gets blatant preferential treatment by Nintendo. While it is justified as them wanting to show off the new FE games in each Smash title, that Fire Emblem is all but guaranteed to get new Smash rep every time a new game releases has embittered fans of older franchises that Nintendo hasn't given as much love lately (especially F-Zero, Metroid, Golden Sun and more). Sakurai being an open Fire Emblem fan hasn't helped the perception of an inherent bias for FE, though this is usually countered by the low representation for the Kirby and Kid Icarus franchises despite Sakurai's own roles in them.
By Ultimate, a growing sentiment is that Fire Emblem is getting over-represented, as with the addition of Chrom it was now the third-most represented series in Smash after only Mario and Pokemon. Given FE's niche status in the West for most of this time, fans weren't very happy at this, partly for the aforementioned reason of wanting their own favorite franchises to get a new fighter (Metroid fans at least got a bone when Ridley joined the Ultimate roster and when Dark Samus became an Echo Fighter for Samus).

Ultimate's Fighter Pass 1: HOES MAD

Following Ultimate's launch, Nintendo released a season pass for five characters who would be added post-launch. Smash getting new fighters is notable not just because it means a new fighter and that franchise getting the prestige of saying it got into Smash, but because it means new music that can be used (unless you're Cloud) during matches. For the most part, the DLC fighters got really positive reactions due to the majority being unexpected third-party choices. Case in point, most players never saw it coming when during the Game Awards 2018, the first fighter would be revealed to be Joker from Persona 5. He'd be followed in 2019 by three more reveals: Dragon Quest's Hero, representing the more iconic protagonists in the legendary JRPG franchise, Banjo and Kazooie from the cult Microsoft series, and Terry Bogard from the SNK franchise (shout out to Sakurai's history lesson that's pretending to be a showcase for Terry, which also involves Sakurai's story of how they got 50 tracks from the SNK games into Smash)
Also Sans from Undertale got in. This unironically led to an increase in Mii Gunner mains.
Terry and Hero would generate some salt in the West due to perceived antiquity and lack of pedegree/mainstream appeal (Hero being "another anime sword boy" didn't help), leading to a mocking response of HOES MAD from Hero's fans especially, though Terry's got in on the fun thanks to the pun involving Terry's home series, Fatal Fury.
Thanks to the four characters seen thus far, the expectation was that Fighters Pass 1 would be made entirely of third party characters, and as January 2020 rolled around the expectations were high as to who would get in. Sora from Kingdom Hearts was a popular choice, alongside Geno from the Mario RPG series. Some dumbasses even wanted Tracer from Overwatch, partly thanks to Blizzard all but openly begging Nintendo for a Smash invite. The one with the most consistent support was Dante from the Devil May Cry series. And a few accidental coincidences boosted the idea of Dante getting in:

• Dante's first three games had been ported to the Switch during Fighter Pass 1, with Devil May Cry 3 releasing in February 2020 soon after the final character was announced.
  
• Brian Hanford, who played V in Devil May Cry 5, had a slip of the tongue where he talked about Dante in the context of Smash (“to be part of Marvel Vs Capcom, or Super Smash Bros., would be huge, which is what Dante is gonna be,”), leading many to believe Brian had leaked Dante as the fifth fighter.
  
• Dante was experiencing a large-scale renaissance in popularity thanks to DMC 5 launching in early 2019, leading to him being on everyone's minds when it came to him joining the roster. Adding in his experience in fighting games already thanks to the Marvel vs Capcom games, it seemed set in stone that Dante would join the hallowed halls of Smash.
  
• To hype up the final character, Sakurai posed with three fingers outstretched. DMC fans took this as a hint of Dante, given that DMC 3 would be coming soon to Switch.
  
• On the same day as the character reveal, Capcom had planned a DMC announcement (it turned out to be an announcement that the game would have a co-op mode for Dante and Vergil in Bloody Palace).
  

With expectations set high, everyone tuned in on January 16th 2020 to see the final Season 1 character... and it was Byleth, the player character of Three Houses.
Another fucking Fire Emblem rep. The internet took it well, as you'd expect. Dante's fans just resorted to sad memes and jokes about one of Byleth's alt skins being "close enough" to let them pretend Byleth was Dante.

Smash likes to date around, and Fire Emblem is that girl that he always goes back to.
Byleth Joins The Roster: The Salt Mines Floweth

Byleth's announcement generates some of the most negative reactions to a Smash fighter yet seen, boasting the largest like-dislike ratios of Ultimate's DLC, and only matched for disliked announcements across the entire franchise by Corrin.
A lot of people weren't happy at Byleth's inclusion, suffice to say, though like Terry and Hero the HOES MAD crowd came back for another go around. It didn't help how utterly predictable it was given it was a historical recreation of Corrin's inclusion in WiiU/3DS. While Byleth had been predicted, many expected the mechanical variance would be that Byleth would function similar to the Pokemon Trainer (who swaps between the Gen 1 Pokemon) in that Byleth would command Claude, Dimitri and Edlegard from the sidelines. Instead, Byleth had four weapons- three representing each of the House Leaders alongside their own custom whip-sword, the Sword of the Creator. That being said, at least Nintendo were somewhat self aware about it this time, given the reveal had supporting character Sothis mock Byleth for losing a fight by going "Too many swordsmen, were there?" as a way to reveal that Byleth's female variant would join the roster.
While Byleth did offer some mechanical variety from the other FE reps, some were disappointed that Byleth specifically was representing Three Houses, due to Byleth's personality not being one of their selling points. Perhaps it would have been more preferable to have one of the House Leaders instead represent the game, but given how any one being selected would have been seen as favoritism of the Leaders (and the arguments about said Leaders being quite vicious), Byleth was the safest choice, if perhaps the most predictable. Fans of Xenoblade 2 were also unhappy at clear bias on Sakurai's part, given he'd previously said Rex, the MC, was from too new a game to qualify for a roster slot in Ultimate. In comparrison, Sakurai admitted in his presentation of Byleth that he pestered the developers to get early access copies of Three Houses to get to plan out Byleth's moveset, which only helped the idea of Fire Emblem operating on different rules from other series.
Overall, Byleth was seen as a disappointing inclusion to wrap up the Fighters Pass, with the announcement honestly being more notable for the memes about the salt over the character themself. (My favorites were the ones about Joker adding yet another teacher to his harem) After the shock reveals from relatively niche series such as Persona and SNK, Byleth was generally felt to be an overwhelmingly safe option to close on. While Sakurai did announce Fighters Pass 2 in the same event, promising six more DLC characters for Ultimate, a lot of fans from different franchises were still let down given how unpredictable the first wave had been.

Fighters Pass 2 and the Byleth aftermath

Byleth would launch a few weeks later and the reception was largely "Yeah they're fine," after an initial launch of "Yeah you're fuckin' overtuned and overpowered." They got some people who main them, others swore off them, much like any other DLC character in a fighting game, and the salt gradually diminished.
In February of 2020, Sakurai would tacitly admit during a Famitsu article about Byleth's development that he was aware of the criticism about the addition, saying that he doesn't have as much power over roster choices as people like to believe (Byleth apparently snubbed a fighter he was much more enthusiastic about) but that he agreed that there were a few too many sword fighters and Fire Emblem representatives specifically in the game. Given Sakurai has said Smash will never have a roster as large as Ultimate again, it's likely some of Fire Emblem's representation will be cut down in future games as part of this culling.

That being said, I understand. First and foremost: there are too many Fire Emblem characters; and what’s more there are too many sword-users.

So far, three of the six planned characters for Fighter's Pass 2 have been released, with Min-Min from the Arms series coming first, Steve from Minecraft literally breaking Twitter (Steve's addition could be a post of its own with how much salt he generated) and the OG Anime Sword Boy, the One Winged Angel himself in Sephiroth being announced at the Game Awards 2020. We're still waiting for updates on when the fourth fighter will be revealed and who they may be, but regardless of who it is, there will always be a few mad hoes in the background.
Also Geno finally got into Smash!... As a Mii skin which led to the character's fanbase collectively reaching for a noose. These hoes weren't even that mad, it was mostly just sad.
Still. At least it's better than whatever the Walluigi mains are up to.
Thanks for reading.

Everyone Hates the Democrats By Dustin Guastella
Progressives and moderates accuse each other of being unable to appeal to working-class voters — and maybe they’re both right.
The Democratic Party may have recaptured the White House, but its crisis remains as deep as ever. Though Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by 7 million popular votes, his Electoral College victory came down to 42,000 ballots in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Democrats barely won the Senate, lost seats in the House, and were stonewalled at the state level — of the twelve legislative chambers Democrats had targeted there, they won zero.
Far from celebrating a landslide victory, with hopes of a national realignment on the way, Democrats found themselves once more engaged in a tense debate about the future of a party that seems incapable of decisively winning control of all branches of government.
On this question, the progressive and centrist wings of the party are more divided than ever. Conservative Blue Dog Democrats like Abigail Spanberger blame radical rhetoric for the party’s poor results in Congress: “we need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. Because while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of it.” In response, our left-wing leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez contend that the Democrats will fail to mobilize their most enthusiastic voters if big-ticket progressive ideas get dropped from the agenda. They argue that the party’s biggest liability was its unimaginative, uninspiring, and thoroughly orthodox economic conservatism. Joe Biden’s promise that “nothing will fundamentally change” might have won over some moderates disgusted with Trump, but it failed to inspire voters to elect a Democratic majority.
Meanwhile, despite losing a presidential reelection bid, many Republican leaders seem unconcerned with the results. After all, Trump managed to improve on his 2016 performance in nearly every demographic group, save college-educated voters and white men. Biden, however, failed to reverse the Democrats’ slow bleeding of working-class voters of all races, so much so that Republican senator Marco Rubio boasts that the GOP is now the party of the “multiracial working class.”
Democrats know they are in trouble, and most of them recognize the problem: their base is too narrow. It is too geographically metropolitan, too educated, and, increasingly, too wealthy. What Democrats most need, then, is a way to build a larger working-class coalition. And this, too, is the crux of the debate between progressive insurgents and establishment politicians: each wing of the party accuses the other of being unable to win working-class voters.
Maybe they’re both right.
The Progressive Archipelago
“Left but not woke” was how commentator David Frum once described Bernie Sanders. In his 2016 bid for the Democratic nomination, Sanders’s economic platform was decidedly ambitious and his rhetoric indisputably populist. In an era of small-government austerity and technocratic solutionism, Bernie often sounded like a New Deal dinosaur, blissfully unaware that history had ended in the 1990s, or that Democrats had become a party of right-thinking college graduates rather than blue-collar workers. He offered a worker-centered economic agenda, without the alienating cultural aesthetic that dominates liberal media and the universities.
No one can deny Sanders’s influence on the future of the US left. His platform has upended the policy consensus on Capitol Hill, and his talking points are now regularly imitated by down-ballot candidates across the country.
Yet many of his most outspoken disciples fail to embody his unique appeal. Instead of the single-minded focus on working-class issues, they often embrace the liberal culture war while peppering in some of Bernie’s popular programs. So, if Bernie is the progressive exception, then what is the rule?
Consider Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, which even the ultraliberal magazine the Atlantic chided for its “Excessive Wokeness.” Warren combined a popular economic agenda with an often awkward attempt at courting Teen Vogue–reading radicals. This approach was admired among activists, media commentators, and some professional-class voters, but almost no one else — especially not the oppressed groups she aimed to attract. Warren came in fourth among black voters in her home state.
Warren is far from unique, though, and the brand of politics she championed is certainly not dead — in deep blue districts, it might even be the norm. The members of the Squad — long thought to be the successors to the Sanders mantle — have welded Bernie’s economic agenda to activist demands like “defund the police” and political appeals that, whatever their merits, seem best at attracting the hyperliberal and highly literate.
Progressives and socialists are now pairing ambitious and urgently necessary proposals like Medicare for All with wildly unpopular and sometimes counterproductive policy positions. Further, progressives have embraced a racialized worldview that reduces whole populations to their skin color. “Woke” ideology has prevented many on the Left from grasping the possibility that a Mexican American may care more about health care than immigration, that a woman might be more motivated by economic promises than electing a first female president, or that Trump might be able to improve his vote share among working-class black voters.
Even the political style of the Left seems designed to turn away potential new recruits. Far from signaling a commitment to vital social causes, being “woke” has become synonymous with an embrace of niche cultural attitudes found only in highly educated urban districts and among Twitter users — 80 percent of whom are affluent millennials. The Sanders campaign attempted a break with the new online consensus when it rejected the fringe term “Latinx” in its historically successful efforts to court Latino voters. And while Sanders failed to win over infrequent, rural, and small-town voters, he recognized how important it was to craft a majoritarian message that could appeal to them.
It’s unlikely that younger progressive leaders will do the same. Standout representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib sit in districts teeming with young, liberal voters (each seat boasts a Democratic advantage of at least 29 percentage points). For urban progressive insurgents — who are cash poor and enthusiasm rich — the incentives are clear: “woke” messaging helps mobilize an activist volunteer base that allows these candidates to overcome their financial weaknesses vis-à-vis established incumbents, and since these districts are so uniformly Democratic, they need not worry about appealing to a broader group in a general election. But even as these progressives have marooned themselves on isolated blue urban islands, they insist more than ever on defining the terms of national debate. And thanks to their unusually strong access to media, they’ve been quite successful at this.
The political problem here is not the moral motivation behind the “Great Awokening” — there is no doubt that progressive Democrats have the best of intentions. The problem is the way in which that moral conviction is expressed, and by whom. Party insurgents today reflect the sensibilities and interests of a constituency that looks and sounds nothing like the kinds of voters the Left desperately needs to win.
After all, professional-class progressives only make up about 13 percent of the electorate, and they almost never vote for anyone other than Democrats. Alternatively, as Peter Hall and Georgina Evans show, about 22 percent of voters dislike cosmopolitan and increasingly out-of-touch liberal cultural appeals but believe in a progressive economic agenda — and these voters are largely working class. Winning the loyalty of the majority of working people in this country will require breaking out of the existing liberal fortresses and appealing to workers across our massive continental democracy. But pairing a popular economic program with alienating rhetoric, chic activist demands, and identity-based group appeals only weakens the possibility of doing so.
Blue Dog Blues
If progressives are trapped by an unpopular political style, many Democratic leaders have carefully distanced themselves from it. You didn’t catch Amy Klobuchar gushing about new activist campaigns. And Biden didn’t bother to even flirt with woke posturing and academic invocations of “intersectionality” the way that Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
Biden presented himself as a reliable and likable moderate — someone to steady the ship after Trump’s rocky tenure and the insurgent challenge of the Sanders campaign. And, since the election, establishment figures have seized on every opportunity to tie Bernie’s popular economic agenda to the more controversial ideas championed by some of his supporters. Spanberger chided the Left to “never say defund the police again,” but the congresswoman was careful to tie the slogan to “socialism” and other more popular economic policies. (Bernie himself never embraced “defunding the police,” and instead argued consistently for better training and more accountability.) Similarly, Representative James Clyburn insisted that the “defund” slogan was as much a liability for Democrats as Medicare for All. Progressives, therefore, have made it easy for moderates to attack an appealing left-wing economic program by simply associating it with the most unpopular pillars of the progressive agenda. In contrast, centrist Democrats and conservative “Blue Dogs” have combined moderate rhetoric with a mostly orthodox economic program. Their charge to the Left is to “grow up.” To win seats, they argue, drop the socialism. But while Spanberger squeaked out a victory in Virginia’s rural heartland, dropping socialism — or even attacking it at every turn — hasn’t prevented her fellow Blue Dogs from becoming a nearly extinct political breed. The conservative Democratic caucus has only twenty-six members in the House, down from fifty-six under Barack Obama. As alienating as woke rhetoric is, a politics that does nothing to address wage stagnation and general economic and social decline isn’t winning many over either.
It’s undeniable that Democrats in rural areas face steeper challenges than their urban and suburban counterparts, but curiously, two outstanding victories for swing-district small-town Democrats were Matt Cartwright in perennially purple Pennsylvania and Peter DeFazio in Oregon. Both are Medicare for All cosponsors; both held on to their seats even as at least seven more Blue Dogs went down to defeat. It should be plain that Spanberger’s rage at progressives is at least as much an expression of frustration that the Blue Dog formula also seems to be failing.
The establishment may credibly argue that hyperliberalism is an electoral liability for the whole Democratic brand, undermining House members who have never claimed any activist bona fides. But what do these Democrats make of the equally credible argument that policies like government health insurance and a $15 minimum wage are widely supported even in districts that make Spanberger’s look liberal?
Mainstream Democrats are fundamentally unwilling to renew their commitment to the New Deal ethos of social programs and union rights. Consequently, they are unwilling to rebuild the kind of electoral coalition that brought them a half-century of political supremacy.
Worse, the Clintonite commitment to economic “modernization” has led the party to a political disaster. The promise was that manufacturing job losses would be offset by widespread economic prosperity, built on Silicon Valley magic and the financial sector’s charge-card plastic. The reality was that the elite economic consensus — tax cuts and balanced budgets — resulted in unparalleled economic decline in midwestern “blue wall” states. Disastrous trade agreements only helped accelerate the depression of wages and the inflation of despair in hollowed-out old factory towns and cities. History will judge the Democrats’ passage of NAFTA as nothing less than the first signature on their own death certificate.
For the Democrats to win back their New Deal (or even Obama-era) constituency, they need to credibly appeal to the economic interests of working people. Unfortunately, moderates in the party are unwilling to offer workers much more than a wry smile and a charming affect. Progressives, meanwhile, do promise real solutions — but only after they drench those appeals in a cultural style born in universities that most people will never attend. The effect in both cases is the same: Workers stay home. And the Democrats lose more and more of the country.
Listen to Workers
One way of looking at the past twelve years of American politics is to say that, in both 2008 and 2016, workers voted for the “change” candidate. They voted for perceived outsiders, and they voted against Washington. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump argued that, through their personal charisma and skill, they could save workers. In both campaigns, workers voted for a candidate who promised to take on elites, renegotiate NAFTA, rebuild our education system, and stem the poverty, disease, and violence that plague so many American neighborhoods.
For over a decade now, the electorate has been screaming at the political class that something must be done and that the government must change course. But the government, under both Obama and Trump, largely ignored them. Nothing significant has changed in these last twelve years. Congress remains in a permanent state of dysfunction.
Meanwhile, the issues workers most prioritize are an afterthought in the media and among the political class. The domination of American politics by the affluent and the educated has led to a dramatic rift in the public sphere and a deep cleavage between rural and urban workers and those with and without a college degree. Within the Democratic coalition, in particular, the gap between workers and professionals has grown wide. In fact, the difference in priorities seems at least as significant as the self-identified ideological divide between the establishment and progressives.
According to a report from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, Democratic-leaning working-class voters ranked their top five issues as follows: health care, social security, Medicare, the economy, and jobs. But liberal professionals listed theirs as: environment, climate change, health care, education, and racial equality. By comparing rankings, we can see great chasms between groups: While crime was listed sixth for workers, professionals’ concerns about crime placed way down in position seventeen. And while workers listed the economy as their number-four concern, professionals saw it as twelfth in line. For professionals, climate change was a top issue in this election — for workers, it didn’t even break the top ten.
Across the board, professionals insist on issues far from the kitchen table, while workers vote almost entirely on direct economic concerns. The Democratic strategy of consolidating their urban and suburban electorate has only resulted in a deepening embrace of issues that narrowly reflect the interests of that constituency. After all, if your party is courting wealthy, mostly white, professional-class voters, you will pitch campaigns designed to attract those voters.
What’s more striking is that — though progressives insist on going much further than centrists on any given policy — the white-collar priorities of both wings of the party were represented in Biden’s campaign. In his victory speech, Biden reiterated his ultimate intentions:

To marshal the forces of science and the forces of hope in the great battles of our time. The battle to control the virus. The battle to build prosperity. The battle to secure your family’s health care. The battle to achieve racial justice and root out systemic racism in this country. The battle to save the climate. The battle to restore decency, defend democracy, and give everybody in this country a fair shot.

Notice that, of the top-priority issues for Democratic working-class voters, only health care was explicitly referred to — coincidentally, it is also a top issue for professionals. If you understand nothing else about American politics, understanding that professional-class issues dominate Democratic appeals will help you make a great deal more sense of the world than incessantly scratching your head during every election cycle about just why it is that workers keep “voting against their interests.”
The fact is, neither workers nor their interests are even on the menu.
A Progressive or Blue-Collar Congress?
The consequences of neglecting workers’ interests are clear: Washington will remain dysfunctional. On the one hand, in order to reverse the bleeding of working class voters — especially in rural areas and small-towns — the federal government must act decisively to reverse the economic decline wrought by decades of reckless shortsighted policy making. On the other hand, until and unless progressive forces figure out how to win outside of large urban areas, the Left will remain legislatively impotent. Centrism is a dead end that promises nothing but razor-thin victories, divided government, and an ever-shrinking share of working-class votes. But getting “woke” also means alienating most voters — of all colors — and handing the Republicans easy layup victories at the polls. Still, it will probably take more than a rhetorical adjustment to regain the confidence of working people. Struggling Americans want jobs, health care, decent schools, safe neighborhoods, and somebody — anybody — in Washington to listen. But why would they listen? Democrats today represent the richest House districts in the country, and Republicans consistently send the wealthiest individuals to Washington. The median income in Congress is 500 percent greater than that of the nation at large — half of our federal legislators are millionaires.
Congress is richer than ever, yet both parties have gloated about their success in “diversifying” the chambers: today, 24 percent of lawmakers are women, 22 percent are racial or ethnic minorities, and more than 5 percent are of foreign birth.
Only 2 percent come from a working-class background.
The case for increasing the representation of minorities and women in Congress has rightly been accepted as both morally correct and politically effective. Yet, in recent memory, there has never been a forceful case for improving the representation of workers. But this is exactly what must happen if we are to avoid the two dead ends of centrism and hyper-liberalism examined above.
Depending on your definition, “the working class” makes up between 55 and 70 percent of the country. The vast majority of this group shares a great deal in common politically, but in our broader political culture, working people are more often expected to sort themselves into groups euphemistically called “communities” than they are encouraged to think of themselves as part of a class. What’s more, workers almost never get to vote for other workers on the basis of their shared experiences, aspirations, and interests as workers.
On almost all major economic questions, lawmakers from blue-collar backgrounds are reliably more progressive than their white-collar counterparts. Working-class legislators are also more likely to come from the districts they are seeking to represent, more likely to come from oppressed groups, and more likely to sound like and speak to the discrete interests of their potential voters. In other words, there is no good reason not to run working people for Congress. There is only one very bad reason, and that is the fact that many progressives, moderates, and conservatives alike plainly think working people are stupid and culturally backward. As a result, no one asks them, or creates the material conditions that allows them, to run.
Political scientist and author of The Cash Ceiling Nicholas Carnes credits this fact as one major reason working people do not run for office. Democratic socialists have a special responsibility to change this — what does workers’ government mean if not workers in government? Doing so would also help us avoid many of the problems outlined here and potentially allow progressives to break out of their blue bubbles.
The good news is that representatives Mark Pocan, a longtime member of the painters’ union, and Donald Norcross, the House’s only electrician, have recently announced a new labor caucus in Congress that could provide a means for doing just that. The caucus seeks to advance the interests of organized and unorganized workers alike. Presumably, it will also endeavor to increase the representation of workers in Congress. If these labor legislators can develop a serious program for the recruitment of workers to run for office, financed by local union PAC contributions and buttressed by big volunteer get-out-the-vote campaigns — especially in the small-town and rural districts where liberals struggle — they could provide a path out of the morass. In Norcross’s home state, the New Jersey AFL-CIO’s Labor Candidates Program has to date secured more than a thousand election victories for unionists and could serve as a model for candidate training and campaign development. In close connection with the congressional Labor Caucus, such local efforts could help develop the political arm of the labor movement while also exciting rank-and-file members who are more likely to mobilize and support their union sisters and brothers than they are any Johnny-come-lately Democrat who only shows up at election time.
For the Left, pivoting toward recruiting worker candidates and retooling a campaign message to speak primarily to the economic interests of wage workers — in rural and urban districts alike — is a function of will. Progressive leaders in Congress are not tied down by corporate donations or deals with party elites that would prevent such a change in direction. And left-leaning Democratic and independent voters are overwhelmingly in favor of the kinds of pro-worker legislation that trade-union candidates might put forward.
Of course, there is no guarantee that working-class candidates armed with a bold economic agenda will break the powerful geographic bias against the Left. At best, the strategy offers only a slow and uneven advance. But it is also true that we have no chance to deliver the reforms we hope to see with a constituency made up of high-earning and highly educated liberals.
Until then, the Democrats will remain the party everyone loves to hate.