IN 2025, WE INTEND TO GROW AT MULTIPLES OF THE MARKET, AGAIN
REV ENUE ( $ M)
$800
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
2022
2023
2024E^
2025E^
2021
20%
Revenuegrowth
7 | ^ Results are preliminary & unaudited | 2025E guidance communicated in an 8K on file with the SEC on 1.13.25
GROWTH & INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT HAVE DRIVEN PROFIT IMPROVEMENT
$20
AEBI T D A $ M
AEBI T D A %
20%
2,800
$10
10%
bps of margin expansion
$0
0%
2024
Q1'22
Q2'22
Q3'22
Q4'22
Q1'23
Q2'23
Q3'23
Q4'23
Q1'24
Q2'24
Q3'24
Q4'24 E*
-$10
-10%
Inflection to profitability
-$20
-20%
8 | Reference non-GAAP reconciliation in appendix. | *Assumes FY'24E AEBITDA of $27M (& implied Q4'24E AEBITDA of $17M), in line with guidance shared with release of Q3'24 financial results
SALES ASSET OPERATING GROWTH EFFICIENCY LEVERAGE
D R I V I N G I M P R O V E D R O I T H R O U G H O U T T H E O R G A N I Z A T I O N
Sales force
Sales force
Surgical set
maturity
penetration/ density
efficiency
Data/ surgical
Infrastructure
Data
planning
utilization
insights
9
MORE PROFIT IMPROVEMENT EXPECTED IN 2025
AEBI T D A $ M
AEBI T D A %
$75
$50
$25
$0
-$25
-$50
2021
2022
2023
2024E^ 2025E^
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
10 | *Assumes 2024E AEBITDA of $27M, in line with guidance shared with release of Q3'24 financial results | ^ Reference non-GAAP reconciliation in appendix
Scott Bessent, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's choice to head the Treasury Department, on Wednesday vowed to ensure that the dollar remains the world's reserve currency as he laid out a vision for a "new economic golden age".
Bessent, who faces questioning before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on Thursday, said in prepared testimony that the new Trump administration must prioritize productive investment that grows the economy over "wasteful spending that drives inflation."
"We must secure supply chains that are vulnerable to strategic competitors, and we must carefully deploy sanctions as part of a whole-of-government approach to address our national security requirements," Bessent said in the remarks.
"And critically, we must ensure that the U.S. dollar remains the world's reserve currency."
Marc Andreessen, the billionaire investor and co-founder of the influential Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, joined the host of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson (former Reagan speechwriter), to discuss his pivotal role in shaping Silicon Valley and politics.
For decades, Andreessen has supported Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. However, a troubling 2024 spring meeting with Biden administration officials spooked the Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He said Biden officials explained their plan to control AI through government regulatory capture—a strategy reminiscent of Communist policies in China.
Andreessen told Robinson that President-elect Donald Trump's knowledge about problem-solving in business and energy is "extremely sophisticated" and "world-class on real estate and communications."
"My analysis would be he is world-class in real estate and on communications ... and he's world-class on both which is like probably the first person in the world to be world-class on both of those things, right? The real estate industry is not historically known for its great communicators," Andreessen continued.
Robinson and Andreessen also discussed Silicon Valley's technological and political evolution, Andreessen's shifting political alliances from Clinton, Obama, and Biden to MAGA, and his vision for harnessing cutting-edge technology to advance societal progress. They also addressed energy challenges, border security, and national defense.
In particular, Robinson and Andreessen spoke about China's manufacturing dominance.
Andreessen explained:
And I'll just tell you where I'm worried right now, where the problem is compounding. So you mentioned the, sort of, iPhone assembly, and that's a big deal. But basically, there's three industries that sort of follow phones that are kicking in right now.
So, one is drones. And it's sort of in a bizarre turn of events, the Chinese basically own the global drone market for all, basically, the consumer drones, all the cheap drones. Which by the way, numerically then are the drones that all the militarys also use in overwhelming numbers. And something over 90% of all drones used by the US military are made in China.
No, no, it gets worse, it gets worse, it gets worse, it gets worse before it gets. So the drone thing is not just a company, it's an entire ecosystem. It's all of the componentry.
He continued:
We have a drone company that's been trying to compete with the Chinese company. Number one, the Biden FAA has been trying to kill us this entire time, trying to do all kinds of things to make sure that American drone companies can't succeed as part of their war on tech. It's literally just another in the long list of ways that they've been just trying to absolutely kill us.
But two is, China has figured this out. And so, the US has been sanctioning AI chips going to China, China is now sanctioning, they sanction our drone company for the battery, [LAUGH] cuz the battery is made in China, right? And so they have like significant leverage, not just for the drones, but for the entire supply chain.
By the way, the drone supply chain is very analogous to the car supply chain. A self driving electric car is very similar to a drone, or for that matter, to an iPhone. It's an electrical mechanical device, but it's a lot of the same kind of battery technology, chip technology, sensor technology.
So they now have their version of what the Germans used to have, which is sort of, the thousands of mid market companies that make all the parts that go into a car. But the German ecosystem is still making them for old internal combustion cars, the Chinese ecosystem is making them for electric cars and self driving cars.
And of course, that means the new Chinese cars that are coming out are really good and they have a giant advantage on cost. And they are starting to bring to market cars that are equivalent in quality to western cars at a third or a fourth of price. So that's coming. And then the big one that follows phones, drones, and cars, logically, is robots.
Robinson asked Andreessen:
And the Chinese are ahead of us there?
Andreessen responded:
100%, now, we have the leading, this is important, we have the leading software,like we have the leading R&D.
Like, we have the smartest, I'm convinced we have like the smartest robotics AI people. We have the best people, specifically for the design of the systems, but we don't have anything resembling the manufacturing capability at all.
Andreessen noted that these technologies are upstream from all the military applications because they are intertwined in the same supply chains. He said the US must confront this and reverse the fragmented approach, where the Biden administration would "hate the domestic American technology industry and is trying to kill it" one day and then, on other days, "thinks we're gonna somehow develop some sort of competitive response to China on cars or on weapons in the future."
The takeaway from the interview is clear: Trump 2.0 must craft a coherent, competitive response to advancing technology under an 'America First' agenda. This is in contrast to the radicals in the Biden-Harris regime, who focused on de-growth policies (under the guise of climate change) that have allowed China to advance ahead of the US.
"What's the whole of government strategy on China? Zero, right? It turns out the president matters," Andreessen concluded.
Watch the full interview here:
One must ask: whose team was the Biden-Harris administration on? It doesn't appear they prioritized an 'America First' agenda. This will change under Trump.
In his final interview as U.S. Ambassador to China,Nicholas Burns told the Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Cheng that Chinese officials severed communication with the U.S. after President Biden’s order to shoot down China’s spy balloonoff the coast of South Carolina, calling it “the most tense moment” of his tenure in Beijing.
JONATHAN CHENG: This is perhaps your last interview here in Beijing, so let me just jump right in and ask: Was there a moment that you thought perhaps we were peering over the edge?
AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: I have to tell you, after the balloon crisis—that was February, the beginning of February 2023—you remember that strange balloon that floated across the national territory of the United States from Alaska to South Carolina. When the president, quite rightfully, ordered it to be shot down over the territorial waters of South Carolina, in the aftermath of that, the Chinese shut down and refused to talk to us in senior-level channels. I was one of the few channels that we had going.
I was worried about the relationship. I think it was the most tense moment, February, March, April of 2023, and that is not healthy for a relationship between the two strongest military powers in the world because you don’t want a situation where a seemingly minor incident, like a misunderstanding in the Spratly Islands between our militaries, might become a major crisis. You want to be able to handle something like that.
JONATHAN CHENG: Now, if you're sitting here in Beijing and you're seeing the rhetoric about Canada, about Greenland, does it make it more difficult for the U.S. government to go to China and say we need to make sure that we respect sovereignty in the South China Sea or around the periphery of China? Does that make it harder?
AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: The argument we made back three years ago when Putin invaded Ukraine is that country's borders are sacred, that sovereignty is sacrosanct, and so that's a fundamental building block of the stable, successful world that we had a lot of responsibility for building—that every single American president has honored.
JONATHAN CHENG: Part of the concern with China and Putin is the question of sovereignty. I mean, it sounds like it does make it more difficult.
AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: Our message to Putin and the Chinese will be very strong and credible when we practice that respect for sovereignty, especially of our allies. These are two NATO allies. You know, NATO's a collective defense organization. We pledge our fortunes to each other. On 9/11, it was the most extraordinary moment of my career when these countries, 18 others, came forward within several hours to say we're with you. We'll invoke this clause in the NATO Charter: an attack on one is an attack on all. Remember who led it? Canada.
JONATHAN CHENG: Now as we look ahead, The next administration, it looks like tariffs are going to be part of the mix here. Certainly, tariff threats are part of the mix. I mean, do you worry about that souring the relationship in particular? And do you grant that perhaps an approach that is tougher might actually yield some benefits?
AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: I wouldn't want to be unfair to them by trying to project what I think they may or may not do, but I will say this: President Biden has used tariffs. In fact, President Biden elevated the tariffs back in May of 2024. He ordered an increase of 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles coming into the United States, 50% tariffs on Chinese semiconductors, and 25% tariffs on Chinese lithium batteries. So if the Chinese are going to compete unfairly, if they're not going to meet us halfway, and if we were to avoid a second China shock that would lead to massive losses in manufacturing jobs in the United States, we've got to defend American workers.
JONATHAN CHENG: Certainly, the Republican Party would say so—that the Biden team hasn't made that much progress on industrial overcapacity and that we need a tougher approach. And what would you say to them?
AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: Well, we've certainly rung the village bell on industrial overcapacity. We see China trying to export its excess production of lithium batteries, solar panels, robotics, steel, to the rest of the world, and you've seen this extraordinary reaction. Who has raised tariffs on China? South Africa, Turkey, India, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States. So we are not alone in reacting to this, which tells you that the Chinese have miscalculated here, and we've reacted in a very strong way. When you raise tariffs in the way that President Biden did—so dramatically, with so much strength—I think that was the right thing for us to do.
JONATHAN CHENG: You've been concerned for your two-plus years at the time about the very aggressive Chinese government efforts to denigrate America, to tell a distorted story about American society, American history, American policy, and there's a high degree of anti-Americanism online. As you walk out the door here, does that continue to concern you?
AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: I think the efforts of the government to do all of that continue, unfortunately. You know, we call it the Battle of Ideas. The communist government here has an entirely different set of beliefs about the rights of individuals, about human freedom, about religious freedom, and we differ very strongly. We're making sure that we have every possibility of going around their censors. They censor us every day, and it's a cat-and-mouse game. We try to get our beliefs, a speech by President Biden, back into the airwaves here, back into the bloodstream of China, and I know we're right in doing this. I think the American people would expect their embassy here to be waging this battle. It's a peaceful battle, but it's a battle for minds and for a true picture of American society. So, we're just trying to defend an accurate view and project an accurate view of our society, our history, and the great ideals for which we stand.
JONATHAN CHENG: You're going to get on a plane and return to the US. Do you worry about the future of US-China relations?
AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: I think we should always be worried about it because here you have the two strongest economic powers and military powers at cross purposes on many of the major issues concerning the future of the world and the future of our relationships. So I think, as a diplomat, I've been constantly concerned in the nearly three years I've been here. We've got to have a combination of real strength and conviction that we're going to uphold American national interests, and at the same time, we're going to have to find a way to work with them and connect to them to keep the peace. Those are not contradictory; that's two halves of a rational policy towards China.
As a vegan chef turned regenerative cattle rancher, I’ve traversed the narrow divides between two worlds: the health-conscious, progressive enclaves of Los Angeles and the rugged, often misunderstood landscapes of rural Texas. For years, I lived and breathed the principles of organic farming and plant-based eating, firmly rooted in the belief that our food systems should be safe, resilient, and free from harmful chemicals. My community was predominantly left-leaning, passionate about clean water, food safety, and the dangers of over-medication. It felt like common sense.
Yet, a seismic shift occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Suddenly, the very people who once railed against chemicals in our food were now clamoring for more. They went from advocating for natural and holistic approaches to a new cult-like devotion to any and every product produced by big pharma, big ag and big food - seemingly forgetting the principles they once held dear. It left me bewildered and questioning the values of a movement I had long identified with.
I am a lifelong liberal. I married someone who is undocumented, and I’ve spent years passionately advocating for organic farming and holistic health. But as the pandemic unfolded, I began to realize that I had more in common with those I once considered my ideological opposites. In seeking a deeper understanding of the debate over the COVID-19 vaccines, I found myself listening to voices I had previously dismissed, including those of the right. It was a disorienting journey, yet it opened my eyes to a broader narrative.
One voice that stood out was Tucker Carlson. Initially, I viewed him through the lens of my biases, assuming he was a racist and a bigot. But as I listened more closely, I realized that he, too, was a father concerned for his children’s health and future. He shared my values around environmentalism, clean water, and the importance of preserving our natural world. This was a turning point for me. I recognized that we were not enemies; we were parents trying to protect our families in a world fraught with uncertainty.
This brings me to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His candidacy for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) resonates deeply with my journey. Many in my community dismiss him as a “whack job” with no medical background, but this kind of labeling is all too reminiscent of how I once viewed Carlson. RFK Jr. is not a threat; he is a champion for informed consent and transparency in our food and pharmaceutical systems.
His vision for HHS aligns perfectly with the values I hold dear. He advocates for reducing chemicals in our food supply and ensuring that parents have the right to understand what goes into their children’s bodies. As a mother, I believe it is our right to know the ingredients in the vaccines our children receive, just as it is our right to demand food that nourishes rather than harms. We cannot ignore the fact that cheap, chemically laden food is a privilege that comes at a grave cost to farmworkers’ health. I was reminded of this every time I spoke to Cynthia, a house cleaner in California, who was part of a team that harvested strawberries—each of them diagnosed with cancer before age 40.
The recent leftward shift towards accepting more chemicals in our food and water is disheartening. This is not merely a partisan issue; it’s a human issue. It’s about our children’s future and the environment we leave behind. We should be prioritizing clean air and water, not pushing for more fluoride or pesticides. True environmentalism is about ensuring that our food is safe, our air is breathable, and our water is drinkable. This has long been a cornerstone of progressive ideology, and it feels like we’ve lost our way.
It pains me to see my friends on the left resist RFK Jr.’s candidacy. He is an accomplished environmental advocate with a proven track record of holding powerful corporations accountable for their actions. He cleaned up the Hudson River and has been a steadfast voice for mothers who have often been ignored. His understanding of the intersection between corporate interests and government regulation is precisely what we need in this critical role.
I understand that the political landscape is fraught with emotion and disappointment, especially with the current administration. However, we must recognize that this is an opportunity for real, transformative change in our food systems—an opportunity to reshape the relationship between corporate interests and government oversight in a way that prioritizes public health and environmental responsibility.
As a mother, a farmer, a chef, and a concerned citizen, it would be a grave mistake to overlook the potential for substantial reform that RFK Jr. could bring to the Department of Health and Human Services. We have the chance to make significant strides toward a healthier food system and a more just society.
I urge the members of the United States Senate to move quickly to confirm Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services so that we can begin the critical work of making our nation’s food supply and its people healthy again.
Mollie Engelhart is an accomplished restauranteur, organic chef and regenerative farmer.
