BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
Twing
Akida’s gambit
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Charmander. I too are very disappointed with the tone of this forum over the last 4 to 6 weeks or so, in fact from about the time FF left.
Like many here, I have put time & money into this forum which I'm now starting to regret. We moved away from the HotCrapper site to get away from this type of crap !
So please please think before you post !
Sirod69
bavarian girl ;-)
can you imagine @uiux and @dippY22 that the founding members have done a lot of work on such a site and you maybe just write here? like me? So many Brainchip forums only consist of people who push and dump again, I've been to many forums and that's no fun when you're a firmly invested person and in this forum there are people who are convinced of BRN and who are already invested, who also support each other when the price falls, here are not those who try to get people to buy or sell, everyone should know for themselves what BRN means for themselves, no dumpers or bashers!!!
Everyone can research according to their own taste, suggestions can be found here, thanks to so many people who believe in BRN, not because of the iceberg or other links.... the iceberg is great, thanks for that, because I can always continue researching and why should one let that be badmouthed now, because of maybe 2 users... but people from the very beginning should please stand over it, whoever no longer believes in BRN should go, not all the others
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
I wonder if citycorp are still accumulating? as someone is with that big sell order in at $1.12 to try and stop any prices going over that.
uiux
Regular
Think about it
I'm literally being attacked because I want to RAISE the quality of research on this forum
HopalongPetrovski
I'm Spartacus!
Thank you for that.
And Thank you for your vast contributions over many years, most of which is way beyond my pay grade.
Hang in there Brother.
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
Sirod69
bavarian girl ;-)
jeder bestimmt diese Forschung selbst und teilt sie mit den anderen, manche verbringen viele Stunden am Tag damit, aber niemand erwartet irgendeinen Anspruch, genau das macht dieses Forum so besonders, wenn ich hier lese, recherchiere ich damit weiter, denn ich habe Zeit, aber es ist auch meine Investition, wenn Sie sich nur auf diese Beiträge hier verlassen, aber selbst nicht überzeugt sind, dann sind Sie hier in diesem Forum wahrscheinlich falsch, hier überredet niemand den anderen zum Kauf oder zum Verkauf, hier werden Informationen gesammelt , du weißt
Auch hier braucht man die Qualität nicht zu steigern, denn sie ist enorm und ich denke, jeder gibt so viel er kann, auch du, wenn du willst
robsmark
Regular
I don’t disagree with your intentions Uiux, and doubt many would - it’s your delivery that’s the problem.
We’re all adults, let’s behave that way. Nobody ever accused me of being the most diplomatic of blokes, but when dealing with well intentioned people, it’s best to be civil.
Last edited:
toasty
Regular
Here here!!
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
everyone determines this research themselves and shares it with the others, some spend many hours a day on it, but no one expects any claim, that's what makes this forum so special, when I read here I research it further, because I have time, but it's my investment too, if you're just relying on these posts here but aren't convinced yourself then you're probably in the wrong place here in this forum, here nobody is persuading the other to buy or sell, this is where information is collected, you know
Again, there is no need to increase the quality, because it is enormous and I think everyone gives as much as they can, including you if you want to
Stable Genius
Regular
Hi guys,
I understand @uiux defending his concrete factual position and @BaconLover getting upset about his work on the iceberg being discredited as it’s only human to take criticism personal, even when it wasn’t meant to be aimed directly at you BL.
I get both points of view, you are both right from your given perspectives.
I’m sure you are all aware in law there are different burdens of proof:
beyond a reasonable doubt; for criminal law (which is what Uiux is advocating);
And on the balance of probabilities; for civil law (which is what a lot of the dot joining is about).
I thought one of the purposes of the forum is to discuss companies which start off as questionable on the balance of probabilities to try and find enough for them to move to either below or above the waterline, e.g. NVIDIA via Valeo/MB, commenting on the links until we have definitive proof to put them on the iceberg.
Some we will definitively know via an announcement; others we may never hear of due to contractual agreements, NDA’s commercial in confidence etc. That’s something we have to live with if we want to invest in a tech company. No point whinging about it! It’s why our CEO advised to watch the financials: and what a confident statement to make!
I have huge confidence in where we are headed as I have done my own research and comfortable with my confidence levels of the knowns and unknowns. No one is going to spoon feed you every bit of information to base your investment decision on, you have to research and rationalise the information in front of you. Hence the saying Do Your Own Research!
Another purpose for this forum is for us to support each other in our common goal in our investment aims. There is enough mis-information out there that it is helpful if we can convey the accuracy of what we are saying e.g. what is the reliability scale. Is it speculative or factual?
With the speculative dot joining sometimes enough corroborated circumstantial evidence can be gathered to still obtain a conviction based on beyond reasonable doubt which is the highest threshold. I am thinking this might be how some of the names below the iceberg waterline have moved to above the waterline. In the end it‘s up to each individual to decide on their level of comfort on what they will accept or not!
I would never risk my hard earned money based solely on posts on this forum without finding corroboration or a good understanding on the context or landscape of the post I’m reading.
An equally important part of this forum is for us to be kind to each other! I understand Uiux you used some of the words you did because they have good shock value and you are trying to convey a message and cut through to a point (I appreciate your direct approach). Something to consider though is that the same words were also hurtful to BL. Both of you are valued contributors.
This is an anonymous forum but many like Uiux and BL have been on here and the other place for many years. It can become quite familiar and I never thought I would be saying this but it can feel like the regulars are distant friends. We are human and build connections; and words can hurt. It’s not my primary reason for being on the forum but it is nice to open up a thread and read something which has been thoughtful, insightful, funny etc and even better if it contains useful information relative to investing in Brainchip.
I am confident we are all going to get wealthy together: some more than others but, let’s make it a nice journey for everyone.
The iceberg was a great pictorial reference and thanks to all who contributed. Maybe if we re-visit some of the more questionable companies for accuracy and in doing so might find some more relevant and up to date information.
Regardless there is enough information out there for me to sleep easy with my investment in Brainchip!
Cheers all.
I understand @uiux defending his concrete factual position and @BaconLover getting upset about his work on the iceberg being discredited as it’s only human to take criticism personal, even when it wasn’t meant to be aimed directly at you BL.
I get both points of view, you are both right from your given perspectives.
I’m sure you are all aware in law there are different burdens of proof:
beyond a reasonable doubt; for criminal law (which is what Uiux is advocating);
And on the balance of probabilities; for civil law (which is what a lot of the dot joining is about).
I thought one of the purposes of the forum is to discuss companies which start off as questionable on the balance of probabilities to try and find enough for them to move to either below or above the waterline, e.g. NVIDIA via Valeo/MB, commenting on the links until we have definitive proof to put them on the iceberg.
Some we will definitively know via an announcement; others we may never hear of due to contractual agreements, NDA’s commercial in confidence etc. That’s something we have to live with if we want to invest in a tech company. No point whinging about it! It’s why our CEO advised to watch the financials: and what a confident statement to make!
I have huge confidence in where we are headed as I have done my own research and comfortable with my confidence levels of the knowns and unknowns. No one is going to spoon feed you every bit of information to base your investment decision on, you have to research and rationalise the information in front of you. Hence the saying Do Your Own Research!
Another purpose for this forum is for us to support each other in our common goal in our investment aims. There is enough mis-information out there that it is helpful if we can convey the accuracy of what we are saying e.g. what is the reliability scale. Is it speculative or factual?
With the speculative dot joining sometimes enough corroborated circumstantial evidence can be gathered to still obtain a conviction based on beyond reasonable doubt which is the highest threshold. I am thinking this might be how some of the names below the iceberg waterline have moved to above the waterline. In the end it‘s up to each individual to decide on their level of comfort on what they will accept or not!
I would never risk my hard earned money based solely on posts on this forum without finding corroboration or a good understanding on the context or landscape of the post I’m reading.
An equally important part of this forum is for us to be kind to each other! I understand Uiux you used some of the words you did because they have good shock value and you are trying to convey a message and cut through to a point (I appreciate your direct approach). Something to consider though is that the same words were also hurtful to BL. Both of you are valued contributors.
This is an anonymous forum but many like Uiux and BL have been on here and the other place for many years. It can become quite familiar and I never thought I would be saying this but it can feel like the regulars are distant friends. We are human and build connections; and words can hurt. It’s not my primary reason for being on the forum but it is nice to open up a thread and read something which has been thoughtful, insightful, funny etc and even better if it contains useful information relative to investing in Brainchip.
I am confident we are all going to get wealthy together: some more than others but, let’s make it a nice journey for everyone.
The iceberg was a great pictorial reference and thanks to all who contributed. Maybe if we re-visit some of the more questionable companies for accuracy and in doing so might find some more relevant and up to date information.
Regardless there is enough information out there for me to sleep easy with my investment in Brainchip!
Cheers all.
uiux
Regular
Hi guys,
I understand @uiux defending his concrete factual position and @BaconLover getting upset about his work on the iceberg being discredited as it’s only human to take criticism personal, even when it wasn’t meant to be aimed directly at you BL.
I get both points of view, you are both right from your given perspectives.
I’m sure you are all aware in law there are different burdens of proof:
beyond a reasonable doubt; for criminal law (which is what Uiux is advocating);
And on the balance of probabilities; for civil law (which is what a lot of the dot joining is about).
I thought one of the purposes of the forum is to discuss companies which start off as questionable on the balance of probabilities to try and find enough for them to move to either below or above the waterline, e.g. NVIDIA via Valeo/MB, commenting on the links until we have definitive proof to put them on the iceberg.
Some we will definitively know via an announcement; others we may never hear of due to contractual agreements, NDA’s commercial in confidence etc. That’s something we have to live with if we want to invest in a tech company. No point whinging about it! It’s why our CEO advised to watch the financials: and what a confident statement to make!
I have huge confidence in where we are headed as I have done my own research and comfortable with my confidence levels of the knowns and unknowns. No one is going to spoon feed you every bit of information to base your investment decision on, you have to research and rationalise the information in front of you. Hence the saying Do Your Own Research!
Another purpose for this forum is for us to support each other in our common goal in our investment aims. There is enough mis-information out there that it is helpful if we can convey the accuracy of what we are saying e.g. what is the reliability scale. Is it speculative or factual?
With the speculative dot joining sometimes enough corroborated circumstantial evidence can be gathered to still obtain a conviction based on beyond reasonable doubt which is the highest threshold. I am thinking this might be how some of the names below the iceberg waterline have moved to above the waterline. In the end it‘s up to each individual to decide on their level of comfort on what they will accept or not!
I would never risk my hard earned money based solely on posts on this forum without finding corroboration or a good understanding on the context or landscape of the post I’m reading.
An equally important part of this forum is for us to be kind to each other! I understand Uiux you used some of the words you did because they have good shock value and you are trying to convey a message and cut through to a point (I appreciate your direct approach). Something to consider though is that the same words were also hurtful to BL. Both of you are valued contributors.
This is an anonymous forum but many like Uiux and BL have been on here and the other place for many years. It can become quite familiar and I never thought I would be saying this but it can feel like the regulars are distant friends. We are human and build connections; and words can hurt. It’s not my primary reason for being on the forum but it is nice to open up a thread and read something which has been thoughtful, insightful, funny etc and even better if it contains useful information relative to investing in Brainchip.
I am confident we are all going to get wealthy together: some more than others but, let’s make it a nice journey for everyone.
The iceberg was a great pictorial reference and thanks to all who contributed. Maybe if we re-visit some of the more questionable companies for accuracy and in doing so might find some more relevant and up to date information.
Regardless there is enough information out there for me to sleep easy with my investment in Brainchip!
Cheers all.
You are right. It's character flaw. That's why I apologised to BL
MaxwellAnne
Regular
@Sirod69 and @uiux is one of the long standing shareholders who has been a huge contributor to tse. I for one do not want to lose his contributions. I don’t know if it is the lack of announcements or what but there appears to be more emotional posts and conflict creeping into this forum. No disrespect to anyone intended.
Edit Nor do I want to lose @BaconLover from the forum. As @stablegenius has said so eloquently in his post. Can we all be a bit kinder to one another
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
As soon as I mentioned the line at $1.12 it vanishes and it looks like they are going to start gobbling up around the $1.00 mark with that holding line now set at $1.055
Good morning,
Is anyone out there ? or am I just talking to myself....
Overnight I have received 2 emails from our CFO, Ken...of which I'll share some key points,
"As far as the Citicorp fund goes, there is nothing sinister going on there. Citicorp is merely a custodial fund and is not the beneficial owner of those shares"
"One of the largest holdings in that account now is the ADR account held by Bank of NY Mellon with nearly 24M shares in it"
The issue or apparant issue in publishing the Top 20, was simply an internal one, whereby the company had decided to have the Top 20 put up on the company website, rather than on the ASX at the same time as the quarterly 4c....but this process wasn't quite as simple and as fast as first thought, for which the CFO has actually apologised for, if it caused any confusion, so by next quarters delivery, we will be able to see the Top 20 on the company website, that can be refreshed each and every quarter from that point on...S... happens from time to time, let's move on.
Let's please stop all the talk of an potential hostile takeover or whatever...it's BS....I'm 100% confident at this point in time.
Cheers for now........Tech x
Is anyone out there ? or am I just talking to myself....
Overnight I have received 2 emails from our CFO, Ken...of which I'll share some key points,
"As far as the Citicorp fund goes, there is nothing sinister going on there. Citicorp is merely a custodial fund and is not the beneficial owner of those shares"
"One of the largest holdings in that account now is the ADR account held by Bank of NY Mellon with nearly 24M shares in it"
The issue or apparant issue in publishing the Top 20, was simply an internal one, whereby the company had decided to have the Top 20 put up on the company website, rather than on the ASX at the same time as the quarterly 4c....but this process wasn't quite as simple and as fast as first thought, for which the CFO has actually apologised for, if it caused any confusion, so by next quarters delivery, we will be able to see the Top 20 on the company website, that can be refreshed each and every quarter from that point on...S... happens from time to time, let's move on.
Let's please stop all the talk of an potential hostile takeover or whatever...it's BS....I'm 100% confident at this point in time.
Cheers for now........Tech x
Cyw
Regular
While Citi may be a custodian, a lot of beneficial owners have no say as to what to buy or sell. Many beneficial owners just give their funds to Citi (probably in some managed fund) and it is up to Citi to trade.Good morning,
Is anyone out there ? or am I just talking to myself....
Overnight I have received 2 emails from our CFO, Ken...of which I'll share some key points,
"As far as the Citicorp fund goes, there is nothing sinister going on there. Citicorp is merely a custodial fund and is not the beneficial owner of those shares"
"One of the largest holdings in that account now is the ADR account held by Bank of NY Mellon with nearly 24M shares in it"
The issue or apparant issue in publishing the Top 20, was simply an internal one, whereby the company had decided to have the Top 20 put up on the company website, rather than on the ASX at the same time as the quarterly 4c....but this process wasn't quite as simple and as fast as first thought, for which the CFO has actually apologised for, if it caused any confusion, so by next quarters delivery, we will be able to see the Top 20 on the company website, that can be refreshed each and every quarter from that point on...S... happens from time to time, let's move on.
Let's please stop all the talk of an potential hostile takeover or whatever...it's BS....I'm 100% confident at this point in time.
Cheers for now........Tech x
Space Cadet
Regular
I am no financial genius but I don't get some of these numbers being put out. This is only my opinion but we license IP to companies. On your figures it would be those companies we license IP to, that would get the 30% Market Share and we would get 5% royalties of that 30%. IMO of course and quite often wrong. And happy to be.
SC
TheUnfairAdvantage
Regular
Funny. @TECH not sure you have noticed. No-one cares about the top 20 anymore.Good morning,
Is anyone out there ? or am I just talking to myself....
Overnight I have received 2 emails from our CFO, Ken...of which I'll share some key points,
"As far as the Citicorp fund goes, there is nothing sinister going on there. Citicorp is merely a custodial fund and is not the beneficial owner of those shares"
"One of the largest holdings in that account now is the ADR account held by Bank of NY Mellon with nearly 24M shares in it"
The issue or apparant issue in publishing the Top 20, was simply an internal one, whereby the company had decided to have the Top 20 put up on the company website, rather than on the ASX at the same time as the quarterly 4c....but this process wasn't quite as simple and as fast as first thought, for which the CFO has actually apologised for, if it caused any confusion, so by next quarters delivery, we will be able to see the Top 20 on the company website, that can be refreshed each and every quarter from that point on...S... happens from time to time, let's move on.
Let's please stop all the talk of an potential hostile takeover or whatever...it's BS....I'm 100% confident at this point in time.
Cheers for now........Tech x
The Titanic has hit a Iceberg otherwise known as a BaconLover FatBurg as is in a chaotic state. There is no sight of the Iceberg and deck chairs are being rearranged whilst the band still plays.
Send our best wishes to BRN management and ask them to take a look at the old Icebefg and provide some useful factual links for us.
Similar threads
