I am going to defend Tony Dawes on this one. I think shareholders have a habit of unfairly scrutinising every little thing that BRN staff say and exaggerate what they think they hear, I know I have in the past. But I think its wrong to turn a small discrepancy into a life sentence. In the case of Tony Dawes, and people can correct me if I am wrong, I think he put an 's' on something like 'we are hoping to announce more commercial deals soon" during a one off single presentation to Chinese investors at some ungodly hour in the morning. A presentation that he was filling in for because others at the company were run off their feet. We shareholders got a hold of it and blew it up because its fun and exciting to do so. Truth is, a few weeks later we did get a great announcement.
Great stuff is happening and the company is staying true to the NDAs. They certainly aren't announcing fluff. People have different expectations but for me I am happily holding through 2022. I believe there will be heaps of good times to celebrate.
Just on this if you are presenting to a group of potential investors it is wise to get your language correct and at the same time I have sympathy for all the points you are making.
I would say if I were to be arguing Mr. Dawe's case in a civil court I would be introducing evidence of the ISL US Airforce Research partnership as a second commercial agreement even though not announced on the ASX. Just because something does not appear on the ASX does not mean it is not a commercial agreement in the wider sense of that word and capable of being ascribed a commercial value.
Next I would be introducing evidence of the agreement with SiFive again on the same basis and also the fact that Vorago has just applied to NASA for a Phase 1 grant to harden an RISC-V for deep space and obliquely references an already proof of being able to harden a complimentary SOC but moving on.
Added to this I would even lead evidence concerning the Mercedes reveal again on the same basis and I would call a few existing investors particularly those from the German institutions who have been buying up Brainchip shares like there is no tomorrow as a result of this reveal to prove it has commercial value in the eyes of the wider investor market around the world not just in Australia.
The ignorance of poor simple retail investors when thrown up against the larger investment world is prayed upon by those who wish to paint a picture that elevate ASX announcements beyond what they actually are but which in a court of law concerning what is a commercial agreement would have little if any forensic value.
The evidence for this statement is to be found in the very rules published by the ASX which makes the disclosure of what is a commercial transaction dependent upon the financial position of the company concerned so that a large company like BHP would not need to publish details of the identical agreement Brainchip entered with MegaChips because it is not material to BHP.
A court would still consider that the BHP MegaChip agreement was in fact and law a commercial agreement.
Such is my confidence in the above I would even appear for Mr. Dawe on a contingency basis and have absolute confidence I would prove to the civil standard that he in fact said what he meant and in fact has delivered already in spades four separate commercial agreements all of which have now been announced.
My opinion only DYOR
FF
AKIDA BALLISTA
.
