BRN Discussion Ongoing

[Realinfo]

Do we all recall hearing at the last AGM…if we win one big deal, it could make us profitable overnight?
It has recently been suggested that ASX disclosure rules could prevent this deal from ever happening…that direct feedback from organisations is that they will not do business with Brainchip because of the ASX disclosure rules...that they do not want to be forced into revealing financial, product use or anything about their relationship with Brainchip, that they wish to remain secret.
I am told that this is the principal reason for listing in the US.
As FF tells us DYOR…well Fact, I have.
If one looks at the ASX disclosure rules, they allow companies to maintain total confidentiality if they follow rule 3.1A (see below). During discussions with the ASX, I have been told…’follow these rules and you don’t have to disclose’.
Now this might exasperate shareholders, myself included, but if a customer wants their relationship with Brainchip kept confidential, it is up to both companies to say nothing.
Ford agreed to make an ASX announcement (see below) so long as it didn’t reveal their name...but because of the speculation surrounding it, the ASX required the name of the Tier-one automotive manufacturer to be released. This upset Ford, and perhaps led to them not continuing with their evaluation.
THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT NEVER HAD TO BE MADE.
If Ford didn’t want to be identified, then as keen as Brainchip might have been at the time, the announcement should never have occurred.
The same applies to all organisations Brainchip has or will have an association with…if they demand confidentiality, then ASX rule 3.1A allows it. Customers can be told with absolute certainty…if you demand confidentiality, then we both have to remain mute about our relationship.
The risk of breaking confidentiality is no greater here, than in any other environment.
So this issue cannot be used as a reason for moving. If the above pathway is followed, Brainchip will enhance its credibility, it will win the deals, generate revenue, increase its share price, and be able to move to a US listing without causing a major loss in value to its existing shareholders.

 

[DingoBorat]

Do we all recall hearing at the last AGM…if we win one big deal, it could make us profitable overnight?
It has recently been suggested that ASX disclosure rules could prevent this deal from ever happening…that direct feedback from organisations is that they will not do business with Brainchip because of the ASX disclosure rules...that they do not want to be forced into revealing financial, product use or anything about their relationship with Brainchip, that they wish to remain secret.
I am told that this is the principal reason for listing in the US.
As FF tells us DYOR…well Fact, I have.
If one looks at the ASX disclosure rules, they allow companies to maintain total confidentiality if they follow rule 3.1A (see below). During discussions with the ASX, I have been told…’follow these rules and you don’t have to disclose’.
Now this might exasperate shareholders, myself included, but if a customer wants their relationship with Brainchip kept confidential, it is up to both companies to say nothing.
Ford agreed to make an ASX announcement (see below) so long as it didn’t reveal their name...but because of the speculation surrounding it, the ASX required the name of the Tier-one automotive manufacturer to be released. This upset Ford, and perhaps led to them not continuing with their evaluation.
THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT NEVER HAD TO BE MADE.
If Ford didn’t want to be identified, then as keen as Brainchip might have been at the time, the announcement should never have occurred.
The same applies to all organisations Brainchip has or will have an association with…if they demand confidentiality, then ASX rule 3.1A allows it. Customers can be told with absolute certainty…if you demand confidentiality, then we both have to remain mute about our relationship.
The risk of breaking confidentiality is no greater here, than in any other environment.
So this issue cannot be used as a reason for moving. If the above pathway is followed, Brainchip will enhance its credibility, it will win the deals, generate revenue, increase its share price, and be able to move to a US listing without causing a major loss in value to its existing shareholders.

I have always hated flow charts!..

But that aside, I'm not sure how what you've posted, would get past the 2nd box, with at least one of the 5 criteria having to be met?..

 

[FiveBucks]

Do we all recall hearing at the last AGM…if we win one big deal, it could make us profitable overnight?
It has recently been suggested that ASX disclosure rules could prevent this deal from ever happening…that direct feedback from organisations is that they will not do business with Brainchip because of the ASX disclosure rules...that they do not want to be forced into revealing financial, product use or anything about their relationship with Brainchip, that they wish to remain secret.
I am told that this is the principal reason for listing in the US.
As FF tells us DYOR…well Fact, I have.
If one looks at the ASX disclosure rules, they allow companies to maintain total confidentiality if they follow rule 3.1A (see below). During discussions with the ASX, I have been told…’follow these rules and you don’t have to disclose’.
Now this might exasperate shareholders, myself included, but if a customer wants their relationship with Brainchip kept confidential, it is up to both companies to say nothing.
Ford agreed to make an ASX announcement (see below) so long as it didn’t reveal their name...but because of the speculation surrounding it, the ASX required the name of the Tier-one automotive manufacturer to be released. This upset Ford, and perhaps led to them not continuing with their evaluation.
THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT NEVER HAD TO BE MADE.
If Ford didn’t want to be identified, then as keen as Brainchip might have been at the time, the announcement should never have occurred.
The same applies to all organisations Brainchip has or will have an association with…if they demand confidentiality, then ASX rule 3.1A allows it. Customers can be told with absolute certainty…if you demand confidentiality, then we both have to remain mute about our relationship.
The risk of breaking confidentiality is no greater here, than in any other environment.
So this issue cannot be used as a reason for moving. If the above pathway is followed, Brainchip will enhance its credibility, it will win the deals, generate revenue, increase its share price, and be able to move to a US listing without causing a major loss in value to its existing shareholders.

But where's the money??

 

[DingoBorat]

But where's the money??

I don't know ...

 

[Slade]

This is how Sean will sell it to sh. If we are not US listed we won't get any grants etc. We'll look into dual listing's Sean

This is a good point. A dual listing would allow those shareholders who hold shares in self managed super funds to keep hold of their shares rather than being forced to sell at a dismal share price.

 

[DingoBorat]

This is a good point. A dual listing would allow those shareholders who hold shares in self managed super funds to keep hold of their shares rather than being forced to sell at a dismal share price.

It doesn't do anything about the regulatory requirements, of being listed on the ASX in respect to disclosure though, which is one of the larger issues.

I previously strongly favored a dual listing, but it doesn't work, for that important reason.

 

[supersonic001]

#israeli #technology #founders | Avraham Hermon

In this picture with Ilay Marom, COO of NaNose Medical, we are holding in our hands a machine which can detect common, life-threatening diseases using a quick breath test, performed at a doctor's office. Listen to more about Ilay's journey and incredible, life-saving device, on the latest...

www.linkedin.com

 

[7für7]

As expected, even this positive news isn’t moving anything anymore. People just want to see cash. Partnerships don’t interest anyone anymore. And the short sellers have an easy game, as always.

 

[Slade]

I doesn't do anything about the regulatory requirements, of being listed on the ASX in respect to disclosure though, which is one of the larger issues.

I previously strongly favored a dual listing, but it doesn't work, for that important reason.

Yes but the biggest issue is for those holding shares in super. Imagine being a loyal supporter of the company and holding shares for years and riding all the ups and downs only to be forced to sell at a loss. The share price will need to be significantly higher before these shareholders can get the return on investment that they deserve.

 

[HopalongPetrovski]

As expected, even this positive news isn’t moving anything anymore. People just want to see cash. Partnerships don’t interest anyone anymore. And the short sellers have an easy game, as always.

Partnerships are great. Building the eco system is great. Being in universities is great. Having solid patent protection is great.
I like and endorse all those things and they make sense to me.
If we were living in the Star Trek universe, they would all probably be sufficient and we could just get on exploring the universe.

But in this one, where small investors back companies with an understanding that they will be compensated for the use of their capital and the risk undertaken, eventually the Company must be able to at least stand on it's own feet and that involves bringing in more revenue than it takes to fund the operation.
We are now well over 3 years into Sean's 5 year plan.
It's time to see us making some progress towards commercial adoption.
ISL and RTX are nice nibbles and will hopefully prove our worth and allow us further traction and adoption within these companies.
I'm also happy for us to be continuing our R&D and expanding our product range, particularly in light of customer feedback.

But the fact remains that Sean was bought onboard to commercialise us and our product and that has been the promise and supposedly the emphasis for at least the last two years.
I'd appreciate some straight talk from Sean about where we are at commercially.
I'm not asking him to predict the future, but an honest disclosure of our progress in relation to his plan thus far, would go some way towards restoring his credibility, which, in my eyes anyway, is wearing thin.

 

[DK6161]

As expected, even this positive news isn’t moving anything anymore. People just want to see cash. Partnerships don’t interest anyone anymore. And the short sellers have an easy game, as always.

Yep, I just want my money back. I would like to reinvest in other stocks while they are slightly discounted at this moment.
We have so many partnerships and collaborations, and they have produced nothing so far. So for me these little news don't mean anything anymore.

 

[7für7]

Partnerships are great. Building the eco system is great. Being in universities is great. Having solid patent protection is great.
I like and endorse all those things and they make sense to me.
If we were living in the Star Trek universe, they would all probably be sufficient and we could just get on exploring the universe.

But in this one, where small investors back companies with an understanding that they will be compensated for the use of their capital and the risk undertaken, eventually the Company must be able to at least stand on it's own feet and that involves bringing in more revenue than it takes to fund the operation.
We are now well over 3 years into Sean's 5 year plan.
It's time to see us making some progress towards commercial adoption.
ISL and RTX are nice nibbles and will hopefully prove our worth and allow us further traction and adoption within these companies.
I'm also happy for us to be continuing our R&D and expanding our product range, particularly in light of customer feedback.

But the fact remains that Sean was bought onboard to commercialise us and our product and that has been the promise and supposedly the emphasis for at least the last two years.
I'd appreciate some straight talk from Sean about where we are at commercially.
I'm not asking him to predict the future, but an honest disclosure of our progress in relation to his plan thus far, would go some way towards restoring his credibility, which, in my eyes anyway, is wearing thin.

That’s exactly what I mean. I completely agree with you.

It’s one thing to be an AI enthusiast and to be satisfied with the company’s progress and its various partnerships—I personally am as well. But the other side of the coin is that I am not an employee of the company. I don’t receive a monthly salary, nor do I get millions of shares handed to me for free. We are all invested with our own money.

I’m tired of constantly leaving the market to the short sellers—the ones who have no faith in the company and laugh in our faces as investors. I’m tired of us, as supporters of the company, having to sugarcoat our investment every day, posting motivational messages, and hoping that we’re included here or there.

I’m not going to judge whether management is doing a bad job, because as an entrepreneur myself, I know how difficult it is to prove yourself in highly competitive markets. However, it is time to create some transparency and finally lay the cards on the table. This secrecy is just ridiculous—as if we were dealing with classified information on the level of national security.

Just tell us where we stand and whether concrete revenue is in sight. It’s no secret that landing a major licensee could make us profitable overnight. That applies to any startup when a big player steps in. The real question is whether such a licensee is actually in the pipeline or if that was just a generic statement.

that’s all

 

[Newk R]

This is a good point. A dual listing would allow those shareholders who hold shares in self managed super funds to keep hold of their shares rather than being forced to sell at a dismal share price.

I didn't think SMSFs had to sell?? Am I mistaken??

 

[Slade]

I didn't think SMSFs had to sell?? Am I mistaken??

This is what I have heard from some shareholders that hold shares in SMSFs. From the little research that I’ve done it seems to be correct. But I think anyone in this situation should make the necessary enquiries and find out if it applies to them. It would be good to hear what others have found out.

 

[Deadpool]

This is what I have heard from some shareholders that hold shares in SMSFs. From the little research that I’ve done it seems to be correct. But I think anyone in this situation should make the necessary enquiries and find out if it applies to them. It would be good to hear what others have found out.

I have a SMSF and can invest in International shares but I believe it is some of the Australian Industry super funds that wont allow it.

 

[Iseki]

Yep, I just want my money back. I would like to reinvest in other stocks while they are slightly discounted at this moment.
We have so many partnerships and collaborations, and they have produced nothing so far. So for me these little news don't mean anything anymore.

Just vote no to redomeciling unless the board can bring in a whale investor to buy 5% of company and ensure profitability so the SP tops 60c before the move.

 

[Tarrawan]

Just vote no to redomeciling unless the board can bring in a whale investor to buy 5% of company and ensure profitability so the SP tops 60c before the move.

Bye Bye .

 

[Zedjack33]

This is what I have heard from some shareholders that hold shares in SMSFs. From the little research that I’ve done it seems to be correct. But I think anyone in this situation should make the necessary enquiries and find out if it applies to them. It would be good to hear what others have found out.

QSuper won’t allow.

 

[Diogenese]

Partnerships are great. Building the eco system is great. Being in universities is great. Having solid patent protection is great.
I like and endorse all those things and they make sense to me.
If we were living in the Star Trek universe, they would all probably be sufficient and we could just get on exploring the universe.

But in this one, where small investors back companies with an understanding that they will be compensated for the use of their capital and the risk undertaken, eventually the Company must be able to at least stand on it's own feet and that involves bringing in more revenue than it takes to fund the operation.
We are now well over 3 years into Sean's 5 year plan.
It's time to see us making some progress towards commercial adoption.
ISL and RTX are nice nibbles and will hopefully prove our worth and allow us further traction and adoption within these companies.
I'm also happy for us to be continuing our R&D and expanding our product range, particularly in light of customer feedback.

But the fact remains that Sean was bought onboard to commercialise us and our product and that has been the promise and supposedly the emphasis for at least the last two years.
I'd appreciate some straight talk from Sean about where we are at commercially.
I'm not asking him to predict the future, but an honest disclosure of our progress in relation to his plan thus far, would go some way towards restoring his credibility, which, in my eyes anyway, is wearing thin.

Hi Hoppy,

The sad fact is that the company gets $0.00 from shares bought on market. IPO aside, it is only when new shares are offered that the company gets any money from share sales.

I'd like to see a system where the company gets a small percent of each on market sale. That way, bot trading and shorting would provide some little benefit the company.

It's good to get a couple of radar partnerships in a couple of days. Tony Lewis linked the ILS partnership with TENNs. I think that the Raytheon/AFRL micro-doppler project will also employ TENNs.

Funny thing, the SBIR site has a short memory: (Maybe they are using Signal.)

https://www.islinc.com/national-security
,,,
ISL has an impressive record of transitioning advanced technologies to the field. In the last few years alone, ISL has been awarded three (3) Phase III SBIR contracts, and has been featured twice as an SBIR Success Story (see for example https://www.sbir.gov/node/1526807).

https://www.sbir.gov/node/1526807
...
The requested page could not be found.

Interestingly Joe Guerci is a pre-Trump-appointed Special Government Employee:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/joe-guerci-505aa26/

Special Government Employee (SGE)
US Army · Part-time Nov 2024 - Present · 6 mos

• • Consultant to Army Science Board

 

[Smoothsailing]

What time is Nintendo releasing their specifications today anyone please ?