Hi Sera,Hi Dingo
Thanks for the feedback, always have enjoyed your posts.
I don't think ive contradicted myself here. I've just tried to show why this topic is difficult. There's two sides to it and there's a need for balance.
There's many reasons why the directors should receive performance shares, some of which I've outlined in my most recent post.
The issue is when the number of performance shares are excessive and the KPI's to obtain them are rudimentary such that they're effectively earned with no effort at all. We can't make judgement on that side of things because we don't know what the KPI's are, but the quantum in my mind is not excessive and seems to align to industry.
To clarify, I have no issue with brainchip's current approach to remuneration.
I just don't agree with Manny's ongoing narrative in convincing shareholders that Sean and co are accumulating in the same sense that us retail shareholders are simply because they haven't sold all of their performance shares lol.
I would love to see the entire board buy a wack of shares on market together to send a collective signal to the market that there's value in brainchip. They've had the chance to do this from $2.34 all the way down to 15c and haven't taken it. I don't think selling 'some' of their performance shares but not all fits the bill in this regard.
Do you?
The opportunity to buy was probably stymied by the prohibition on insider trading.
The eternal bugbear of the BRN shareholder is the ubiquitous and seemingly eternal NDAs. The senior executives and most empyees would be aware of the contents of one or more of these. There would not have been a moment when they were not aware of insider information.
For example, the Raytheon thing seems to have been ongoing since at least mid 2023. Whatever is happening with Mercedes and Valeo goes back even earlier.
The message from management has been unrelentingly enthusiastic, going back to the hockey sticks, which seem to have been on ice for a while now.
Last edited: