BRN Discussion Ongoing

We know that Quantum Ventura mentioned Akida for possible Cyber- NeuroRT & wonder if we will get a crack at this one as well.

They wanting AI / ML Neuromorphic.

They make it clear that offeror can't disclose specific platforms through unclassified channels.

The following dates apply to this DARPA Topic release: April 26, 2022: Topics issued for pre-release May 11, 2022: Topics open; DARPA begins accepting proposals via DSIP June 07, 2022: Deadline for technical question submission June 14, 2022: Deadline for receipt of proposals no later than 12:00 pm ET


HR0011SB20224-06 TITLE: Hardening Aircraft Systems through Hardware (HASH)
OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Cybersecurity
TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform,Information Systems
OBJECTIVE: The effort will develop, validate and harden aircraft systems against errors, failures, and
cyber-attacks arising from the introduction of electronic pilot kneeboards and maintenance connections
into the cockpit.
DESCRIPTION: Electronic pilot kneeboards and the cost advantages of condition- and network-based
maintenance processes offer new potential mission benefits and new requirements for connectivity in the
cockpit of DoD aircraft systems. At the same time, these open new concerns associated with pilot and
operator errors, system failures, and cyber-vulnerabilities. Hardware hardening capabilities are required
that are impervious to malicious software yet mindful of Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) constraints.
Unlike most ground-based installations, DoD aircraft defenses must respond in real-time, provide alerts to
the pilot, prevent undesirable outcomes, and instantly adapt to the level of threat.
The last five years have seen a quiet revolution in the underlying fabric of systems engineering with the
coming of age of many enabling technologies: open standards for system and sensor busses have emerged
that enable competitive acquisition processes; System-on-Chip and Field Programmable Gate Array
(FPGA) devices offer new levels of integration and performance; High-Level Synthesis accelerates circuit
design; Partial Reconfiguration allows real-time circuit adaptivity; formally verified software subsystems
offer new levels of system assurance. These advances are revolutionizing commercial networking and
systems design, but have yet to have a significant presence in the cockpit, especially on DoD legacy
platforms.
This SBIR topic will develop, harden and validate system design, software, and hardware innovations that
improve aircraft resilience while reducing SWaP. Approaches should address the hardware to be
developed, expected path of integration, metrics of success, assessment methods, and integration of
solutions into robust, real-time cyber defenses of interest to the DoD.
PHASE I: The Phase I feasibility study shall include the documentation of a basic prototype consisting of
the co-designed software code and hardware capabilities that are demonstrably impervious to advanced
cyber-attacks and malicious software infiltrations of the supply chain yet mindful of Size, Weight, and
Power (SWaP) constraints for connectivity in the cockpit of DoD aircraft systems.
Proposers interested in submitting a Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposal must provide documentation to
substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described above has been met and
describes the potential military and/or commercial applications. Documentation should include all
relevant information including, but not limited to: technical reports, test data, prototype designs/models,
and performance goals/results. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer
to Section 4.2, Direct to Phase II (DP2) Requirements, and Appendix B of the DARPA Instructions for
DoD BAA 2022.4
PHASE II: Phase II shall produce system design, implementation, and maintenance capabilities to
significantly advance the state of the art in security and resilience of cockpit connectivity and integration
of modern computational architectures and user interfaces. These integrated systems of co-designed
software and hardware architectures will support Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based or Neuromorphicbased capabilities, including a cyber-attack detection capability. This capability will detect anomalous
sequences of instructions, using strategies for tight integration of CPUs and Artificial Intelligence
DARPA - 33
(AI)/Machine Learning (ML)/neuromorphic fabrics. It will provide for effective cyber warning with an
acceptable false alarm rate in a SWaP-constrained environment for efficient runtime cyber warning.
Strong technical approaches will provide innovative concepts for coupling AI/ML or neuromorphic logic
with conventional CPU cores. Thus, it will provide the ability to monitor an instruction queue of the
frontside bus of CPU cores to mitigate cyber vulnerabilities. The AI or ML techniques shall capture an
understanding of a system design and determine vulnerabilities.
The DoD has requirements for implementing cyber resiliency and tamper resistance in its aircraft
platforms, ordnance systems and associated support systems. The DoD has significant interest in
advanced software engineering and digital design technologies that implement robust security related to
Platform IT (PIT), programmable logic, and physical digital electronics hardware involving, but not
limited to, the following:
• Software, hardware and/or programmable logic implementing security that significantly advances the
state of the art while simultaneously supporting performance and SWaP in areas regarding:
1. Protocol checking logic for detection of maliciously formed packets with advanced secure parsing
and input validation logic residing on hardware or FPGA fabric, to implement a vetting function
prior to reaching an objective network stack process residing on the objective CPU core. Said
capability shall provide minimal impact on performance, latency and throughput.
2. Packet inspection logic supporting high throughput and minimal latency for detection of
malicious payloads prior to reaching an objective network stack process residing on the objective
CPU core.
3. Avionics networking defensive logic, especially targeting MIL-STD-1553, ARINC-429, ARINC629, ARINC-664, Fibre Channel and Ethernet. Said approaches shall be retrofittable with
minimal impact on target platforms.
4. Advanced approaches to implement secure loader and secure monitor functionality on a SoC type
implementation with security core residing on fabric interacting with processes running on
contained CPU cores for robust detection of malicious activity on protected CPU cores.
5. Innovative methods to improve the capability of standard FPGA security cores, regarding
performance and resource utilization.
a. Methods to detect and/or prevent the adversary utilizing undefined semantics for malicious
purposes.
b. Methods to detect and/or prevent the adversary from utilizing emergent behaviors of existing
implementations for malicious purposes.
c. Methods to implement Root of Trust (RoT), secure boot (cold boot), and secure restart (warm
boot).
d. Methods to advance the secure loading of FPGA configuration files over existing approaches.
e. Methods in volume protection that increase security while simultaneously supporting high
heat dissipation.
6. Methods to implement security in a powered-off state with only limited battery powered
functionality available for sensors and defensive logic.
a. Methods that address known computer processor hardware vulnerabilities that are
retrofittable into existing systems. [IMPORTANT: Offeror in an UNCLASSIFIED proposal
should not explicitly mention specific platform subject to said vulnerability.]
b. Methods that address known crypto implementational security issues (not basic cryptological
algorithm issues) in embedded crypto systems that are retrofittable into existing systems.
[IMPORTANT: Offeror in an UNCLASSIFIED proposal should not explicitly mention
specific platform subject to said vulnerability.]
DARPA - 34
c. Methods to thwart Reverse Engineering (RE) of sensitive software, hardware and/or
programmable logic that strongly obscures the functionality, effectively denying the ability to
perform RE but provides for the ability to operate in a hidden/obfuscated/encrypted state with
minimal and/or acceptable impact on performance and/or latency.
d. Methods for implementing a covert communication channel (intended to be unknown to the
attacker) between various avionics components or subsystems to support alerting, logging or
a coordinated response to a RE attack or a cyber attack.
• Techniques to provide for provability and traceability of software, hardware and programmable logic
regarding:
1. Innovative approaches to formal methods that in addition to proof of correctness, provide proofs
of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA):
a. Approaches to supporting scalability of formal methods to support large scale software
packages and large circuit design Hardware Description Language (HDL) code bases.
b. Robust approaches to dealing with covert channels, timing channels and side channels.
c. Provability regarding software targeting multiprocessing implementations including
Symmetric Multi-Processing (SMP) and other multiprocessing arrangements such as
Asymmetric Multi-Processing (AMP) (in part, related to the previous bullet).
d. Techniques to support verification for mixed implementations involving both software with
hardware and/or programmable logic, where the software is tightly coupled to
hardware/programmable logic in a target such as a System on a Chip (SoC).
e. Techniques to provide for formal verification of Machine Learning (ML) and neuromorphic
hardware and use cases where software is coupled to a ML/neuromorphic system in support
of some Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) application such as sensor data processing,
tracking or autonomy.
• Technologies that provide the ability to rapidly and effectively assess the provenance of software,
programmable logic and hardware in a manner significantly more robust than code signing (cf. the
recent SolarWinds attack subverting the software build environment to bypass code signing). These
technologies must provide the capability to prove that no unauthorized and potentially malicious
modification has been made anywhere in the supply chain or development system. They shall have
traceability back to the software/hardware development system and relate to the software
module/hardware cell level. They shall provide the ability to vet the individual software/IP
blocks/hardware cells at the target or at the software loader/device programmer, accessing artifacts
providing proof such as:
1. Software/hardware/programmable logic fully confirms to system program office approved design
specification with no additional functionality.
2. Software/hardware/programmable logic was only developed and/or modified by authorized
developer personnel.
3. Software/hardware/programmable logic was only developed and/or modified using approved
toolchains.
4. Software/hardware/programmable logic was only developed and/or modified on approved
development systems.
5. Software/hardware/programmable logic was only developed and/or modified during an approved
period.
DARPA - 35
Successful offerors in their proposals will demonstrate a strong understanding of the technology areas that
they respond to and they will articulate a compelling necessity for S&T funding to support their
respective proposed technology approaches over existing capabilities.
Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables Phase II fixed payable milestones for this program shall include:
• Month 2: New Capabilities Report, that identifies additions and modifications that will be researched,
developed, and customized for incorporation in the pilot demonstration.
• Month 4: PI meeting presentation material, including demonstration of progress to date, PowerPoint
presentations of accomplishments and plans.
• Month 6: Demonstration Plan that identifies schedule, location, computing resources, and any other
requirements for the pilot demonstration.
• Month 9: Initial demonstration of stand-alone pilot application to DARPA; identification of military
transition partner(s) and other interested DoD organizations
• Month 12: PI meeting presentation material, including demonstration of progress to date, PowerPoint
presentations of accomplishments and plans.
• Month 15: Demonstration to military transition partners (s) and other DoD organizations.
• Month 18: PI meeting presentation material, including demonstration of progress to date, PowerPoint
presentations of accomplishments and plans.
• Month 21: PI meeting presentation material, including demonstration of progress to date, PowerPoint
presentations of accomplishments and plans.
• Month 24: Final software and hardware delivery, both object and source code, for operation by
DARPA or other Government personnel for additional demonstrations, with suitable documentation
in a contractor proposed format. Deliver a Final Report, including quantitative metrics on decision
making benefits, costs, risks, and schedule for implementation of a full prototype capability based on
the pilot demonstration. This report shall include an identification of estimated level of effort to
integrate the pilot capability into an operational environment, addressing computing infrastructure
and environment, decision making processes, real-time and archival data sources, maintenance and
updating needs; reliability, sensitivity, and uncertainty quantification; and transferability to other
military users and problems. The report shall also document any scientific advances that have been
achieved under the program. (A brief statement of claims supplemented by publication material will
meet this requirement.) Provide Final PI meeting presentation material.
Phase II Option: The option shall address preliminary steps toward the certification, accreditation and/or
verification of the resulting base effort's hardening capability.
Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables for Phase II Option Phase II fixed payable milestones for this
program option shall include:
• Month 2: Plan that identifies the schedule, location, computing resources and/or any other
requirements for the hardening capability's certification, accreditation, and/or verification.
• Month 4: Presentation on the detailed software and hardware plan for the technical capability.
• Month 7: Interim report on progress toward certification, accreditation and/or verification of the
technical capability.
• Month 10: Review and/or demonstration of the prototype capability with the documentation
supporting certification, accreditation and/or verification.
• Month 12: Final Phase II option report summarizing the certification, accreditation and/or verification
approach, architecture and algorithms; data sets; results; performance characterization and
quantification of robustness.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: (U) The DoD and the commercial world have similar
challenges with respect to maintaining the cyber integrity of their computing and communications
infrastructure. The Phase III effort will see the developed technical capability transitioned into a DoD
DARPA - 36
enterprise aircraft system that can be used to discover, analyze, and mitigate cyber threats. Government
and commercial aircraft systems have similar challenges in tracking, understanding, and mitigating the
varied cyber threats facing them in the cockpit of aircraft systems. Thus, the resulting hardening
capability is directly transitionable to both the DoD and the commercial sectors: military and commercial
air, sea, space and ground vehicles; commercial hardening of critical industrial plant (i.e. control systems,
manufacturing lines, chemical processes, etc.) through secure programmable logic controllers; securing
cloud infrastructure associated with optimization of industrial processes and condition-based maintenance
of air, sea, space and ground vehicles.
As part of Phase III, the developed capability should be transitioned into an enterprise level system that
can be used to detect heavily obfuscated or anti-debugging and integrity checking techniques employed
by a cyber intruder. The resulting hardening capability is directly transitionable to the DoD for use by the
services (e.g., Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE), etc.) that have requirements for implementing cyber
resiliency and tamper resistance in its aircraft platforms. This is a dual-use technology that applies to both
military and commercial aviation environments affected by cyber adversaries.
REFERENCES:
1. C. Adams, “HUMS Technology”, Aviation Today, May 2012.
2. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2012/05/01/hums-technology/
3. Shanthakumaran, P. (2010) “Usage Based Fatigue Damage Calculation for AH-64 Apache
Dynamic Components”, The American Helicopter Society 66th Annual Forum, Phoenix, Arizona.
4. P. Murvay and B. Groza, "Security Shortcomings and Countermeasures for the SAE J1939
Commercial Vehicle Bus Protocol," in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67, no.
5, pp. 4325-4339, May 2018, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2018.2795384.
KEYWORDS: aircraft systems, cyber attacks, operator errors, cyber vulnerabilities, hardware hardening
TPOC-1: DARPA SBIR/STTR Program Office
 

Attachments

  • DARPA_SBIR_224_R3.PDF
    649.5 KB · Views: 112
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Love
Reactions: 28 users
I agree with you, the confusing part for me is the ARM statement is bundled with the SiFive statement. We know SiFive

Good Morning Chippers,

An interesting website to keep an eye on regarding our company and where she sits in the ASX , by market capitalisation.

Market Index. Com .au.

Brainchip,

Pressently ranked 194 out of 2,416 market participants.

And number 11 out of 234 tech sector participants.

WooHoo.

Regards,
Esq.
As far as I know it has to make it to 179 to force way into asx200. This info is available on Market Index.

SC
 
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 7 users

Bravo

If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
Since starting his podcast in 2014, bestselling author Tim Ferriss has interviewed well over 100 highly successful people, from Navy SEALs to billionaire entrepreneurs.

He uses his interviews to pick apart the, as he puts it, "tactics, routines, and habits," that have brought these subjects to the tops of their fields. He's collected his favorite lessons from these discussions, along with a few new ones, in his book "Tools of Titans."

..... there is a passage in Herman Hesse's 1922 novel "Siddhartha" that offers a suitable lens for all of the "tools" he shares in his book.

Siddhartha tells the merchant that, "Everyone gives what he has," and the merchant replies, "Very well, and what can you give? What have you learned that you can give?"
"I can think, I can wait, I can fast," Siddhartha says.


"I can think: Having good rules for decision-making, and having good questions you can ask yourself and others.

"I can wait: Being able to plan long-term, play the long game, and not mis-allocate your resources.

"I can fast: Being able to withstand difficulties and disaster. Training yourself to be uncommonly resilient and have a high pain tolerance."


So, after you've done an appropriate amount of 'thinking, waiting and fasting' are you then allowed to go out and buy yourself a tropical island and place a large cash deposit on a castle masquerading as a house?😝🤣



1570167515_84803.jpg

6f7162502ae3d913.jpg
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 19 users

Clipclop

Emerged
A question; it has probably been raised before; has anybody queried the Aust Future fund as to [A] have they invested in BRN or Why not?
With all the talk about AI and how Aust wants to be at the fore front of this research surely BRN should be front and centre. A large holding in BRN would not just be a wealth generator, but give us a stake in something front and centre of world tech.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Thinking
Reactions: 16 users

TECH

Regular
Interesting isn't it....The ASX dishes out a please explain and the answers are generally always
No No No No.....thanks for coming, can we carry on now, undisturbed.

Today $1.20 down as low as $1.00 that's a 16.5% move to the downslide, where's the please explain now.

The whole thing is a sham in my opinion. :unsure::geek:😜
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: 52 users

Dang Son

Regular
The game is not fair. Do not play as you cannot win day to day. It will eat you up and spit you out.

I have mentioned my son previously. At one point after going to the UK he worked at the Financial Conduct Authority.
After the Lehman affair collapsed the world financial system the big players all signed up to a voluntary code to play nice in future. Barclays signed this code. Two weeks later a retail investor complained that his account had been mismanaged or worse still fraudulently dealt with and rather than having lost his 1.5 million pounds he should have made 4.5 million pounds. Barclays said we will investigate and came back and said no nothing to see here you just made a bad trade and kept their million pound plus commission and left their employees 200 thousand pound commission in his account. This retail investor rang the FCA and was referred to my son who carried out the investigation and called for all the files including emails which were supplied and after analysing these documents showed the trader at Barclays had in fact defrauded this retail investor of his investment for his and Barclays benefit with the assistance of all traders not just those at Barclays. The wink, wink say no more brigade at work across all the desks. The retail investor received his money about 4.5 million pounds and fines and disqualifications were imposed on Barclays and the trader and there was a lot of press coverage in the UK and around the world. Barclays once again promised to be good in future. I was greatly reassured by this promise.

The only leverage retail have is Doing Their Own Research and having a Plan.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
Hi FF what's a good example of a plan that Management and yourself refers to?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users

Slade

Top 20
Share Price up, Share Price down
Traders running round and round
But for me, I don’t care
I got WANCA proof underwear
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: 36 users

HopalongPetrovski

I'm Spartacus!
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users

Bravo

If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
richdiesslin_smartcar.jpg




index.jpg
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 15 users

equanimous

Norse clairvoyant shapeshifter goddess
ARMed and dangerous.png
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 30 users
Hi FF what's a good example of a plan that Management and yourself refers to?
Hi Dang Son

I cannot speak for management as I am an independent retail investor.

Can you clarify what your question is please?

Regards
FF
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Mercfan

Member
  • Haha
  • Fire
Reactions: 3 users
Interesting isn't it....The ASX dishes out a please explain and the answers are generally always
No No No No.....thanks for coming, can we carry on now, undisturbed.

Today $1.20 down as low as $1.00 that's a 16.5% move to the downslide, where's the please explain now.

The whole thing is a sham in my opinion. :unsure::geek:😜
In about 2019 after all of the fraud and malpractice that the FCA had found and continued to find with the retirement of the then Head of the FCA the Government of the day appointed a new Head who declared the FCA had done a sterling job and the industry had changed its ways and prosecution was no longer to be seen as the goal but guidance and education was to be the way forward.

The whole financial system is geared to the interests of the large institutions.

The following is an interesting summary of some of the fines imposed which gives scale to the corrupt practices that weigh on retail investors ability to play in this area:

“The biggest corporate fines in history and how they changed business​

Governments and civil courts are increasingly willing to inflict hefty penalties for wrongdoing, says author José Hernandez.​

by José Hernandez
Published: 24 May 2019
Last Updated: 23 May 2019
The decade since the 2008 financial crisis has witnessed an explosive leap in the magnitude of fines and penalties handed down to global companies found to have engaged in improper conduct. The $1.6bn penalty inflicted on engineering giant Siemens that year by US and German authorities for alleged violations of anti-corruption laws is less than half of the charge taken at Odebrecht in 2016 ($3.5bn).
These amounts, while huge, pale in comparison to the largest multi-billion-dollar fines levied for other major corporate offenses, ranging from financial fraud to violations of international sanctions and environmental crimes.
The United States has led this charge in pursuing increasingly massive fines for corporate offenders. However, prosecutors and regulators in other jurisdictions – and especially in Europe – have recently begun to follow suit. It's worth pointing out that the fines and penalties themselves imposed on companies by governmental authorities to resolve criminal and civil matters are just one part of the story – many such settlements bring forth class-action lawsuits and derivative actions that can add billions to the total price tag for misconduct.
The massive scope of today’s fines – and even greater reputational fallout of the wrongdoing they quantify – means that companies cannot afford to view such payments as mere "costs of doing business". Rather, they need to take a hard look at their business practices and make significant investments in their resources, structures and policies for compliance to ensure that they are equipped to prevent, detect, and respond to improper conduct before it is too late.
The top corporate fines each tell a story about how pervasive cultures of cheating can snowball into a scandal of catastrophic proportions and astronomical cost.

THE TOP CORPORATE FINES TO DATE​

The biggest corporate fine to date was levied against BP in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the largest in history. BP settledwith the U.S. Department of Justice for $20.8bn in 2016; the total compensation ultimately paid out by the company reportedly exceeded $65bn.

BP’s experience came at a sensitive time, when global discussions on tackling climate change pushed big oil company investments further towards renewable energy and more sound safety practices.
Several of the largest fines have hit the financial services industry, a direct result of the scrutiny facing banks in the wake of the financial crisis. These include the second-place $16.65bn fine paid by Bank of America in 2014 for its role in the subprime loan crisis, the $13 billion paid by JP Morgan to resolve similar charges, and the $8.9bn paid by BNP Paribas for violations of U.S. sanctions against Sudan, Iran, and Cuba.
Major fines have also been levied on Citigroup, Royal Bank of Scotland, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Wells Fargo, and HSBC holdings for conduct ranging from money laundering to rate manipulation, retail practices, and tax evasion. As a result, financial services companies have been forced to make significant new investments in their compliance, controls and oversight – however, with new cases often in the news, it appears that more much effort remains to be done.
The third largest fine was paid by Volkswagen, which, in 2016, faced $14.7bn in civil and criminal penalties from the United States in the wake of its scandal over emissions cheating. In a world increasingly concerned with the response to climate change, the VW case shook the entire automotive industry to the core. The VW scandal effectively doomed diesel as a fuel for the future. Today, all major automotive companies are directing their investments (and future) towards electric cars, while striving to meet increasingly aggressive emissions targets.

BIG TECH IN THE CROSSHAIRS​

Regulators in the US and Europe alike appear to be taking aim at Silicon Valley and with growing concerns about cyber-security, data protection, and online privacy, the technology sector has emerged as the next target of multi-billion-dollar fines. Over the past three years, the EU has levied a series of fines against Google for alleged anti-competitive practices, totalling over €8bn. In 2019, it has been widely reported that another tech giant, Facebook, is expected to face fines of up to $5bn by the Federal Trade Commission for privacy violations.

THE TAKEAWAY​

The lesson from these giant fines and penalties is clear: the era of tolerance for corporate crime has ended and going back to business-as-usual is not an option. Public and media attention, programs that reward whistleblowers, and multi-jurisdictional information sharing by national enforcement agencies means that global companies are under more regulatory scrutiny than ever before.
To be sure, this is a good thing: the mammoth fines of the past decade have forced companies to rethink their business practices on safety, environment, labour, integrity, transparency, competition, and corporate responsibility. Expect many more in the future”

What happened today is what I am speaking about and cannot be second guessed on a regular basis by retail shareholders. Those with wealth have power over the markets.

@MADX earlier today posted a very nice post about me but I must correct one thing I have never spoken on the telephone to anyone at the company. I keep all my communications via email to create a record and to prevent any misunderstandings between myself and those I communicate with and it is the consistency of these communications over some years which has caused me to trust their integrity.

The only way to consistently win as a retail investor is to research, research, research and have a plan based on your personal situation and stick to it and never think you can pat the animals at the ASX Zoo and not loose your hand.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Fire
Reactions: 23 users

equanimous

Norse clairvoyant shapeshifter goddess
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Slade

Top 20
From BrainChip's website, this is what I love most.

1652157961857.png
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Fire
Reactions: 50 users

MDhere

Regular
bugger got back home from work and my 99c buy order missed by "that much"
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users

FromBeyond

Member
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Dang Son

Regular
Hi Dang Son

I cannot speak for management as I am an independent retail investor.

Can you clarify what your question is please?

Regards
FF
Thanks FF,
When I read, have a plan, I get the implication that I should be doing something smarter than what I'm planning, which is to wait for it to reach 10 bags then pull out my capitols and hold the free carry for further growth and potential dividends.
I haven't managed to swing any BRN into Super but still working on that (with a financial adviser like a handbrake)
What else could be implied by , "Have a plan."?
Thanks in advance, DS
I think it was Lou that said it also without elaborating.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
Top Bottom