BRN Discussion Ongoing

[7für7]

Today we are all like “what’s happening? What’s going on.. “

Tomorrow morning they will drop a big announcement about a BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT…..BAAAAAAAAAM

 

[Cardpro]

they can go to centrelink

I might line up soon

 

[Cardpro]

Today we are all like “what’s happening? What’s going on.. “

Tomorrow morning they will drop a big announcement about a BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT…..BAAAAAAAAAM

Yes plz!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DingoBorat]

Consolidation does not change the proportion of the company you own. In theory, the SP should increase by the same multiplier as the divisor of the number of shares.

So, true, it does open the door for lower SP, but the Board's thinking is they have been casting pearls before swine for the last 2 years for no result on the ASX, whereas the NYSE can make a necklace ...

"Consolidation does not change the proportion of the company you own. In theory, the SP should increase by the same multiplier as the divisor of the number of shares"

That statement is simply not True in practice Diogenese, due to things like Leverage, Supply and Demand and the fact that this would likely result in the issuance of new shares (for the necessary liquidity, if nothing else) with the proportion of "old shareholders" pushed to the side.

That's why Tony Dawe, is aware that anything other than a Dual Listing, with the current float, is a Betrayal of existing shareholders.

 

[schuey]

Today we are all like “what’s happening? What’s going on.. “

Tomorrow morning they will drop a big announcement about a BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT…..BAAAAAAAAAM

I may be crazy but I'm thinking along the same lines......something big to come soon

 

[perceptron]

I have always wanted to own a technology stock in the US. Maybe a new thread should be created?

 

[Worker122]

Atlassion moved over some time ago, it worked out for them,I’m ok with the idea.

• Atlassian's founders, Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar, originally incorporated the company in Australia in 2002.
  
  
• In 2014, Atlassian redomiciled to the UK to prepare for an initial public offering (IPO).
  
  
• In 2015, Atlassian debuted on the Nasdaq stock exchange.
  
  
• In 2022, Atlassian redomiciled back to the United States.
  
  
• The company believes the redomiciliation will:
  • Increase access to investors
    
    
  • Support inclusion in additional stock indices
    
    
  • Improve financial reporting comparability
    
    
  • Streamline corporate structure
    
    
  • Provide more flexibility in accessing capital

 

[Cardpro]

W

Atlassion moved over some time ago, it worked out for them,I’m ok with the idea.

• Atlassian's founders, Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar, originally incorporated the company in Australia in 2002.
  
  
• In 2014, Atlassian redomiciled to the UK to prepare for an initial public offering (IPO).
  
  
• In 2015, Atlassian debuted on the Nasdaq stock exchange.
  
  
• In 2022, Atlassian redomiciled back to the United States.
  
  
• The company believes the redomiciliation will:
  • Increase access to investors
    
    
  • Support inclusion in additional stock indices
    
    
  • Improve financial reporting comparability
    
    
  • Streamline corporate structure
    
    
  • Provide more flexibility in accessing capital

Well their revenues were in 100s of millions with many many customers, we have less than half a million ;(

Legit wth, development services revenue of 190,903.5

prob less than 1 engineer's salary... or just enough...

 

[HopalongPetrovski]

Consolidation does not change the proportion of the company you own. In theory, the SP should increase by the same multiplier as the divisor of the number of shares.

So, true, it does open the door for lower SP, but the Board's thinking is they have been casting pearls before swine for the last 2 years for no result on the ASX, whereas the NYSE can make a necklace ...

Hi Dodgy.
Absolutely correct regarding consolidation in theory.
Perhaps I have just been unlucky, but in each case where I have experienced it in practice, the share price pretty quickly retreated leaving me in a worse position. And I have heard many similar reports from others, although I do not know the veracity of their claims.
In truth, given my relatively small sample of lived experience, perhaps others could inform us all of their experience of consolidation?
Particularly interested in these kind of artificial circumstances where it is done just to engineer a particular share price to accomodate a listing rule.

 

[Diogenese]

"Consolidation does not change the proportion of the company you own. In theory, the SP should increase by the same multiplier as the divisor of the number of shares"

That statement is simply not True in practice Diogenese, due to things like Leverage, Supply and Demand and the fact that this would likely result in the issuance of new shares (for the necessary liquidity, if nothing else) with the proportion of "old shareholders" pushed to the side.

That's why Tony Dawe, is aware that anything other than a Dual Listing, with the current float, is a Betrayal of existing shareholders.

The statement that you will own the same proportion of the company after as before is verifiably true.

Any issue of further shares is a separate action, not part of consolidation.

I stated that the SP SHOULD in theory increase proportionally. This means the value of share holding after consolidation should be the same as it was before consolidation so that the market capitalization of the company remains constant before and after. What the market makes of the MC and SP after consolidation is another thing.

Supply and demand play their role in determining the SP before and after consolidation, but are not part of consolidation.

 

[CHIPS]

Sorry, but the second one reads to me like written by a BrainChip marketing company.

 

[Diogenese]

Hi Dodgy.
Absolutely correct regarding consolidation in theory.
Perhaps I have just been unlucky, but in each case where I have experienced it in practice, the share price pretty quickly retreated leaving me in a worse position. And I have heard many similar reports from others, although I do not know the veracity of their claims.
In truth, given my relatively small sample of lived experience, perhaps others could inform us all of their experience of consolidation?
Particularly interested in these kind of artificial circumstances where it is done just to engineer a particular share price to accomodate a listing rule.

Well the Board is hoping that BRN/BRCHF/... is the exception that proves the rule.

Clearly BRN is valued orders of magnitude below its true potential.

Practically every piece of good news in the last couple of years (and there have been a lot) has eventuated in a price decline. The Board believes that, as far as short manipulation is concerned, the poacher will not be the gamekeeper on the NASDAQ.

The ASX is comfortable with mines, banks and grocers, but it is battle-shy with tech following the DOTCOM boom. The ASX simply lacks the expertise to understand the potential of Akida. This is not the case on the NASDAQ.

The proposed move indicates that Board has also taken note of SH concerns about transparency and official announcements.

So, if you have faith in the Board, there is a lot to like about it, but as with some others, I am uncertain as to how Australian SHs will manage their portfolios, tax, super, etc.

 

[rgupta]

The statement that you will own the same proportion of the company after as before is verifiably true.

Any issue of further shares is a separate action, not part of consolidation.

I stated that the SP SHOULD in theory increase proportionally. This means the value of share holding after consolidation should be the same as it was before consolidation so that the market capitalization of the company remains constant before and after. What the market makes of the MC and SP after consolidation is another thing.

Supply and demand play their role in determining the SP before and after consolidation, but are not part of consolidation.

My worry is if there is no US brokers and institutional fund involved and company is not releasing any information or creates an interest for new buyer to hold, they will make all us shareholders worthless.
Market is a game where checks and balances are required. To my imagination brainchip will end up diluting more than 5% for than 20 million drawdown commitment. We have no institution interested in paying set amount for 5% in brn.
Then they will list the company in US and most of the trades and people will be new. No one wants to pay you even if they see a merit. Looking at brainchip for last 4 years it is as silent as everyone is sleeping.
I am worried about US listing without a news.
Dyor

 

[Cardpro]

Well the Board is hoping that BRN/BRCHF/... is the exception that proves the rule.

Clearly BRN is valued orders of magnitude below its true potential.

Practically every piece of good news in the last couple of years (and there have been a lot) has eventuated in a price decline. The Board believes that, as far as short manipulation is concerned, the poacher will not be the gamekeeper on the NASDAQ.

The ASX is comfortable with mines, banks and grocers, but it is battle-shy with tech following the DOTCOM boom. The ASX simply lacks the expertise to understand the potential of Akida. This is not the case on the NASDAQ.

The proposed move indicates that Board has also taken note of SH concerns about transparency and official announcements.

So, if you have faith in the Board, there is a lot to like about it, but as with some others, I am uncertain as to how Australian SHs will manage their portfolios, tax, super, etc.

Hopefully we will be too rich and brainchip can hire big accounting firms to assist us with tax lol

 

[The Pope]

Regarding the announcement about relocation, I'm uncomfortable about them de-listing on the ASX and re-listing in the US (Nasdaq?) mainly because its inconvenient for me (e.g can't manage position through Commsec etc) and I am also a little concerned about getting equal/fair value in the new US shares. It's just out of my experience and comfort zone but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, on the positive side, and this is reflected in the announcement, US markets do have a different approach to valuing tech stocks and are more interested in potential rather than current revenue and that could be good for us in terms of share price.

Thoughts?

Can’t see why you can’t manage on Commsec.
Just have an international account. Very easy to open and get the feeling BRN would do this as part of the transfer to US exchange anyway.
A key issue is always the US to Aussie exchange rate if or when you sell pending how the US dollar is ratio wise to Aussie dollar.

 

[gex]

Ok. So for the average Joe like me, what will happen to my current shares? Will they just be paid out.
I have no international account for trading

 

[The Pope]

It’s all over for the company shareholders now. So much potential and the management & board have been a disaster

Assume you are related to dickleboro ?

 

[Mccabe84]

My worry is if there is no US brokers and institutional fund involved and company is not releasing any information or creates an interest for new buyer to hold, they will make all us shareholders worthless.
Market is a game where checks and balances are required. To my imagination brainchip will end up diluting more than 5% for than 20 million drawdown commitment. We have no institution interested in paying set amount for 5% in brn.
Then they will list the company in US and most of the trades and people will be new. No one wants to pay you even if they see a merit. Looking at brainchip for last 4 years it is as silent as everyone is sleeping.
I am worried about US listing without a news.
Dyor

Doesn't Vanguard already own over 50 million shares in BRN and aren't they an institutional fund ?

Also doesn't point 2 somewhat address this

 

[HopalongPetrovski]

Ok. So for the average Joe like me, what will happen to my current shares? Will they just be paid out.
I have no international account for trading

As I understand it, if you do nothing, your shares and the BrainChip listing on the ASX will simply cease to exist at a certain point and be replaced by an equivalent number of shares in the new American entity trading on an as yet unknown American exchange.

 

[rgupta]

Well the Board is hoping that BRN/BRCHF/... is the exception that proves the rule.

Clearly BRN is valued orders of magnitude below its true potential.

Practically every piece of good news in the last couple of years (and there have been a lot) has eventuated in a price decline. The Board believes that, as far as short manipulation is concerned, the poacher will not be the gamekeeper on the NASDAQ.

The ASX is comfortable with mines, banks and grocers, but it is battle-shy with tech following the DOTCOM boom. The ASX simply lacks the expertise to understand the potential of Akida. This is not the case on the NASDAQ.

The proposed move indicates that Board has also taken note of SH concerns about transparency and official announcements.

So, if you have faith in the Board, there is a lot to like about it, but as with some others, I am uncertain as to how Australian SHs will manage their portfolios, tax, super, etc.

I agree 100% with you but migration needs a lot of effort and brainchip management proved many times they are useless on financial management. Sean lied on last credit raise that new institutions will be on board while all those shares were absorbed by shorters. We did not use a single penny of that credit raise and we are back with our begging bowl..
Why cannot we find something better than manipulative LDA and we want to list in US without listing on asx
How many finance gurus will believe on brainchip story here. Technology is one aspect but handling finance of same company is another. This idea is good but without a proper plan it will only ruin holder's wealth
Dyor