BRN Discussion Ongoing

[Slade]

I sent Tony Dawe the following email.

Hi Tony,
FactFinder recently posted on Tsex that the Company has confirmed ongoing engagements with around 40 named companies/entities.

Many Moons ago LDN said we had NDAs with North of 100 companies, with a sprinkling of Fortune 500s (I know his style was a bit different).

I understand that BrainChip would receive a number of enquiries, that lead to no special or ongoing relationships and many of these "North of 100" could have fallen into this category.

But, would the Company be able to comment on the "approximate number" of "substantial" ongoing relationships, with companies under NDA, that are not part of the known 40 odd?
By substantial, I mean companies with the potential to "significantly" add to BRNs future fortunes, should that be the case.

It might be of interest to a few.

I understand that this question may seem a bit frivolous, to those that are in the thick of it, but there are definitely those who would like to know and it is a genuine shareholder enquiry.

I do understand the Company's reasons for being, what some would call, overly conservative in communications of engagements, but this is a very general request.

Hope you're all doing well there
Regards _______ (DingoBorat)

This was his reply, I was going to emphasize certain parts of it, but I thought better to leave as is.
I think the parts in question, will stand out on their own

Despite not actually answering my question, I personally was very happy with the answers.

Cheers Tony


Hi _______
Thank you for your email.

As I’m sure you can appreciate, I am not going to provide you with an “approximate number” of “substantial” ongoing relationships with “companies under NDA that are not part of the known 40 odd”.

The number of engagements we have is commercially confidential. You can reasonably assume that it is many times larger than the number of known engagements that we have announced.

As to whether these engagements are “substantial” depends on your definition. To us all engagements are substantial, but clearly some are more substantial than others.

They range on a spectrum from “not particularly substantial” to “extremely substantial” and occupy every place along that spectrum. Some relationships are dormant and are not currently active, others are very active and progressing towards a commercial outcome. All engagements are of substance to BrainChip, regardless of their status. As we say, “once a customer, always a customer”.

Some engagements that we had assumed were inactive have recently been re-activated, others reach a point where we think they will progress further and then the engagement just stops. This is the reality of life in the commercial space of the tech sector, and it’s a part of the process that is typically not well understood by Australian retail shareholders and is the source of much of their frustration and impatience. In this respect BrainChip is no different to every other tech start-up company seeking to gain market acceptance and establish a market for its products.

The threshold for making disclosure to the ASX is when an event becomes “material and/ or price sensitive”, and most of our customer engagements have not crossed that threshold.

Some engagements will never cross that disclosure threshold but will remain important commercial relationships for us anyway. Others will only cross that threshold after a considerable investment of time and energy to bring the customer to a point when they are ready to acquire an IP licence. This is one of the moments when the disclosure threshold is crossed and where a stand-alone ASX announcement would be made.

To be clear, ecosystem partnerships are typically not material and/ or price sensitive events and do not require a stand-alone ASX announcement, as they typically don’t have any immediate revenue implications and don’t impact our share price. These types of announcements, while important milestones in the rollout of our commercial strategy, fail to meet the ASX disclosure threshold.

I hope this brief explanation helps you and other investors understand why we don’t disclose all our engagements via the ASX and why we are deliberately conservative about giving away details about the number of customer engagements we have. I hope that helps clarify the situation for you, without actually answering your question.

Regards

brainchip
Tony Dawe

Thanks for sharing @DingoBorat I hope you don’t mind me highlighting my favourite part of TD’s reply.

“Some relationships are dormant and are not currently active, others are very active and progressing towards a commercial outcome.”

 

[Slade]

I call BS on this reply. Oz retail shareholder have been WAY more patient with BRN than their US counterparts would have been. And that goes for US institutions as well. If BRN was listed on the Nasdaq and producing the (non) commercial results they currently are, they would be receiving a string of visits from institutional shareholders wanting to know WTF is happening.

I love it. I can really feel the passion coming through in this post. The way you able draw on you education and experience and deliver such a convincing argument. It’s mind blowing. I’m with you all the way. I’m calling BS too.

 

[DingoBorat]

I call BS on this reply. Oz retail shareholder have been WAY more patient with BRN than their US counterparts would have been. And that goes for US institutions as well. If BRN was listed on the Nasdaq and producing the (non) commercial results they currently are, they would be receiving a string of visits from institutional shareholders wanting to know WTF is happening.

You're entitled to your opinion Toasty, but I think if we were listed on the NASDAQ, with our current known engagements, the market would value us very differently and shareholders sentiments would also be different..

We will not get that opportunity, until we have made extra ground though, so it's a moot point..

 

[Rach2512]

I just typed into Google Bard, which company has a neuromorphic chip for sale today, only 2 companies came up, Brainchip and Inilabs, (who we signed a joint dev & marketing agreement with in 2016) response attached, (I hope, I'm not very tech savvy)

 

[Bravo]

View attachment 40622

Wow! You've got a very floppy rod lloveLamp! I believe you can cast further distances with them even if they are a bit harder to toss all the way out into the water.

 

[Bravo]

A great read published just a few days ago.

Forget Tesla. Mercedes is betting $45 billion it can become the king of luxury EVs

Mercedes-Benz Chief Executive Ola Källenius is putting his chips on rebuilding the electric-vehicle motor and outmaneuvering rivals on autonomous driving.

www.latimes.com

 

[Slade]

Our good friend at Renesas:

For software, Chittipeddi said “AI developers must step up their ability to prune machine learning (ML) algorithms and models, enabling them to run more efficiently on purpose-built silicon such as low-power neural processing units (NPUs).”

How GenAI Impacts the Semiconductor Industry | Synopsys Blog

Explore how generative AI (GenAI) is reinventing the semiconductor industry, EDA tools, and chip design with panel insights from leading EDA industry experts.

www.synopsys.com

 

[Proga]

No, I don't think it's a sinking ship, I said the quarterly reports are crap.

I think it will sail one day (or sink if it doesn't get adopted by the market and gets skipped).

The numbers on the quarterlies are crap and it has been crap since it was listed. If it was good, our share price wouldn't sit at 30c level.

But based on recent focus on edge ai and neuromorphic computing, it suggests that it might sail soon (and it is more evident that we are the leader on this field...everything except our revenue/cash inflows suggest this imo)...

So I bought more with the hope of us catching the big market and finally sailling.

Mate, you need to remember a lot in here are novice investors. I've been wanting to buy $50k more for the last month but SYR keeps heading in the wrong direction . My eye is on the prize which I believe is in 2024. Calm before the storm

 

[Learning]

I sent Tony Dawe the following email.

Hi Tony,
FactFinder recently posted on Tsex that the Company has confirmed ongoing engagements with around 40 named companies/entities.

Many Moons ago LDN said we had NDAs with North of 100 companies, with a sprinkling of Fortune 500s (I know his style was a bit different).

I understand that BrainChip would receive a number of enquiries, that lead to no special or ongoing relationships and many of these "North of 100" could have fallen into this category.

But, would the Company be able to comment on the "approximate number" of "substantial" ongoing relationships, with companies under NDA, that are not part of the known 40 odd?
By substantial, I mean companies with the potential to "significantly" add to BRNs future fortunes, should that be the case.

It might be of interest to a few.

I understand that this question may seem a bit frivolous, to those that are in the thick of it, but there are definitely those who would like to know and it is a genuine shareholder enquiry.

I do understand the Company's reasons for being, what some would call, overly conservative in communications of engagements, but this is a very general request.

Hope you're all doing well there
Regards _______ (DingoBorat)

This was his reply, I was going to emphasize certain parts of it, but I thought better to leave as is.
I think the parts in question, will stand out on their own

Despite not actually answering my question, I personally was very happy with the answers.

Cheers Tony


Hi _______
Thank you for your email.

As I’m sure you can appreciate, I am not going to provide you with an “approximate number” of “substantial” ongoing relationships with “companies under NDA that are not part of the known 40 odd”.

The number of engagements we have is commercially confidential. You can reasonably assume that it is many times larger than the number of known engagements that we have announced.

As to whether these engagements are “substantial” depends on your definition. To us all engagements are substantial, but clearly some are more substantial than others.

They range on a spectrum from “not particularly substantial” to “extremely substantial” and occupy every place along that spectrum. Some relationships are dormant and are not currently active, others are very active and progressing towards a commercial outcome. All engagements are of substance to BrainChip, regardless of their status. As we say, “once a customer, always a customer”.

Some engagements that we had assumed were inactive have recently been re-activated, others reach a point where we think they will progress further and then the engagement just stops. This is the reality of life in the commercial space of the tech sector, and it’s a part of the process that is typically not well understood by Australian retail shareholders and is the source of much of their frustration and impatience. In this respect BrainChip is no different to every other tech start-up company seeking to gain market acceptance and establish a market for its products.

The threshold for making disclosure to the ASX is when an event becomes “material and/ or price sensitive”, and most of our customer engagements have not crossed that threshold.

Some engagements will never cross that disclosure threshold but will remain important commercial relationships for us anyway. Others will only cross that threshold after a considerable investment of time and energy to bring the customer to a point when they are ready to acquire an IP licence. This is one of the moments when the disclosure threshold is crossed and where a stand-alone ASX announcement would be made.

To be clear, ecosystem partnerships are typically not material and/ or price sensitive events and do not require a stand-alone ASX announcement, as they typically don’t have any immediate revenue implications and don’t impact our share price. These types of announcements, while important milestones in the rollout of our commercial strategy, fail to meet the ASX disclosure threshold.

I hope this brief explanation helps you and other investors understand why we don’t disclose all our engagements via the ASX and why we are deliberately conservative about giving away details about the number of customer engagements we have. I hope that helps clarify the situation for you, without actually answering your question.

Regards

brainchip
Tony Dawe

Thanks for sharing DB,

I like this part, very much.

"You can reasonably assume that it is many times larger than the number of known engagements that we have announced."

I have always assumed that Brianchip has more engagements then what is currently know. The statement from Tony, really reinforce my belief.


Learning 🏖

 

[IloveLamp]

I love it. I can really feel the passion coming through in this post. The way you able draw on you education and experience and deliver such a convincing argument. It’s mind blowing. I’m with you all the way. I’m calling BS too.

@Slade dealing with the mosquito's

 

[DingoBorat]

Thanks for sharing DB,

I like this part, very much.

"You can reasonably assume that it is many times larger than the number of known engagements that we have announced."

I have always assumed that Brianchip has more engagements then what is currently know. The statement from Tony, really reinforce my belief.


Learning 🏖

Don't want to go nuts interpretating Tony's choice of words..

But "many times larger" implies more than twice, thrice, or fouice the number of known engagements (40 odd)..

So where would that number be .. 40 x...

 

[Proga]

I sent Tony Dawe the following email.

Hi Tony,
FactFinder recently posted on Tsex that the Company has confirmed ongoing engagements with around 40 named companies/entities.

Many Moons ago LDN said we had NDAs with North of 100 companies, with a sprinkling of Fortune 500s (I know his style was a bit different).

I understand that BrainChip would receive a number of enquiries, that lead to no special or ongoing relationships and many of these "North of 100" could have fallen into this category.

But, would the Company be able to comment on the "approximate number" of "substantial" ongoing relationships, with companies under NDA, that are not part of the known 40 odd?
By substantial, I mean companies with the potential to "significantly" add to BRNs future fortunes, should that be the case.

It might be of interest to a few.

I understand that this question may seem a bit frivolous, to those that are in the thick of it, but there are definitely those who would like to know and it is a genuine shareholder enquiry.

I do understand the Company's reasons for being, what some would call, overly conservative in communications of engagements, but this is a very general request.

Hope you're all doing well there
Regards _______ (DingoBorat)

This was his reply, I was going to emphasize certain parts of it, but I thought better to leave as is.
I think the parts in question, will stand out on their own

Despite not actually answering my question, I personally was very happy with the answers.

Cheers Tony


Hi _______
Thank you for your email.

As I’m sure you can appreciate, I am not going to provide you with an “approximate number” of “substantial” ongoing relationships with “companies under NDA that are not part of the known 40 odd”.

The number of engagements we have is commercially confidential. You can reasonably assume that it is many times larger than the number of known engagements that we have announced.

As to whether these engagements are “substantial” depends on your definition. To us all engagements are substantial, but clearly some are more substantial than others.

They range on a spectrum from “not particularly substantial” to “extremely substantial” and occupy every place along that spectrum. Some relationships are dormant and are not currently active, others are very active and progressing towards a commercial outcome. All engagements are of substance to BrainChip, regardless of their status. As we say, “once a customer, always a customer”.

Some engagements that we had assumed were inactive have recently been re-activated, others reach a point where we think they will progress further and then the engagement just stops. This is the reality of life in the commercial space of the tech sector, and it’s a part of the process that is typically not well understood by Australian retail shareholders and is the source of much of their frustration and impatience. In this respect BrainChip is no different to every other tech start-up company seeking to gain market acceptance and establish a market for its products.

The threshold for making disclosure to the ASX is when an event becomes “material and/ or price sensitive”, and most of our customer engagements have not crossed that threshold.

Some engagements will never cross that disclosure threshold but will remain important commercial relationships for us anyway. Others will only cross that threshold after a considerable investment of time and energy to bring the customer to a point when they are ready to acquire an IP licence. This is one of the moments when the disclosure threshold is crossed and where a stand-alone ASX announcement would be made.

To be clear, ecosystem partnerships are typically not material and/ or price sensitive events and do not require a stand-alone ASX announcement, as they typically don’t have any immediate revenue implications and don’t impact our share price. These types of announcements, while important milestones in the rollout of our commercial strategy, fail to meet the ASX disclosure threshold.

I hope this brief explanation helps you and other investors understand why we don’t disclose all our engagements via the ASX and why we are deliberately conservative about giving away details about the number of customer engagements we have. I hope that helps clarify the situation for you, without actually answering your question.

Regards

brainchip
Tony Dawe

Well done @DingoBorat. Tony has hit the nail on the head.
They range on a spectrum from “not particularly substantial” to “extremely substantial” and occupy every place along that spectrum. Some relationships are dormant and are not currently active, others are very active and progressing towards a commercial outcome. All engagements are of substance to BrainChip, regardless of their status. As we say, “once a customer, always a customer”.

I've owned a lot of companies over the years with MOU's/relationships which never developed into anything. It isn't the number of relationships but zeroing in on the importance of each relationship. Especially in the short term when a company is trying to gain credibility in the market.

You can't become ubiquitous without having a customer.

 

[Pepsin]

Great to read many appreciative posts, Sean has made an immediate adjustment to his communication style, nice to see.

I always like to undersell the revenue (sub $40,000 USD) ...our accounts are looking pretty stable at this point, and as a few have
already commented on, Sean has now reaffirmed AKD II will be available late September, so things are tracking along nicely.

The company is already considering the approach that they will take with AKD III, so nobody could package up an argument that our
team are idle, far from it, just sit back for a moment and consider the team we had in 2018/2019 to now, it's beyond solid !

56.16% held outside of the Top 20, it also remains very steady.

Are we close to having a few more IP signings between now and the end of September ?....worth pondering over.

Love Brainchip....Tech

Thanks for the words about Akida III. In my opinion most big players will need to see continuity before they adopt our approach not only in a single product but also in a whole product-family. It´s great to hear that our team is thinking further ahead and aims to show partners that the Akida-family will go along with future developments.
That aligns well with the phrase from the email dingo borat received from Tony Dawe: “once a customer, always a customer”. Customer know that and will ensure that BRN will deliver future products before they risk switching to Akida.

 

[AARONASX]

They range on a spectrum from “not particularly substantial” to “extremely substantial”

Thanks for the post DB,

My favourite takeaway was the above!

If you're betting against Brainchip, you would be playing with fire. whether or not the 'extremely substantial' is at the forefront or dormant...

The only reason other than stupidity for shorting is the Shorters are relying on history and what's proven today, but tomorrow that'll change. Tik tok motherf***ers.

 

[toasty]

I love it. I can really feel the passion coming through in this post. The way you able draw on you education and experience and deliver such a convincing argument. It’s mind blowing. I’m with you all the way. I’m calling BS too.

OK, I get it. You cannot see any other view than rosy. All the best to you. Onto ignore you go.

 

[Baisyet]

BrainChip Holdings (ASX:BRN) Is In A Good Position To Deliver On Growth Plans

Just because a business does not make any money, does not mean that the stock will go down. For example, although...

au.finance.yahoo.com

 

[Proga]

OK, I get it. You cannot see any other view than rosy. All the best to you. Onto ignore you go.

His analytical ability is non existent. He doesn't know how to add value to the conversation so plays the man not the ball.

 

[Damo4]

OK, I get it. You cannot see any other view than rosy. All the best to you. Onto ignore you go.

His analytical ability is non existent. He doesn't know how to add value to the conversation. Only knows how to play the man not the ball.

"Hey Google...what's a circle jerk?"

 

[Proga]

"Hey Google...what's a circle jerk?"