David holland
Regular
Ha ha you'll be the first one whinging mate,Why is Sean getting these shares, why haven't we signed another IP License
, but where at 17 cents when can we give the 2nd strike
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
, but where at 17 cents when can we give the 2nd strike
TheFunkMachine
seeds have the potential to become trees.
I am not debunking this theory at all Bravo. And I do love your input on the forum. However how does Panasonic, cadence, MIRISE and Synopsis play a part if it is our technology?Howdy Brain Fam,
Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas. I just noticed this on Socionext's website. See date below 28th December 2023!
They're working with Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, Toyota, Denso, Panasonic, Cadence, Renesas..and the list goes on to research and develop SoC's for automobiles using chiplet technology to install in mass production vehicles from 2030 onwards!!!!!!
View attachment 52906
View attachment 52900
View attachment 52904
To find the above on the website, click on this link https://www.socionext.com/en/info/Automotive-SoC_2023.html and then click on PDF.
And then...from another area on Socionext's website (which can be found find by clicking on this link https://www.socionext.com/en/info/Automotive-SoC_2023.html and scrolling down the bottom of the page), you can see that Socionext say in regards to their Advanced AI Solution for Automotive that "Socionext has partnered with artificial intelligence provider BrainChip to develop optimized, intelligent sensor data solutions based on Brainchip’s Akida® processor IP."
So my guess would be that we be providing the advanced AI for the AI chip shown on the PDF describing the new SoC!!!!!!!
I do know that we have a foot in with Socionext and Renasas, but why mention all the other names and not mention Brainchip?
Fact Finder
Top 20
Hi All
A little bit of historical context to start with:
Sean Hehir interview with Mark Kennis after 2022 AGM - extract below
Sean: But what I said yesterday at our AGM, I think is very, very true. We spent nine years building this amazing technology. It’s transformational in its capability and powerful, but we were not doing enough in our go-to-market motion. So, I started to build the go-to-market motion, and I laid about five or six steps.
One was clarifying the business model. That was very, very important. Chips or IP?
We clarified that it’s IP.
A really important step.
We do have chips available, boards and things like that, but the revenue streams of the company are gonna be IP.” - (note the admission by Sean Hehir here that they have PoC's available.)
This was six to seven months before Jens Paetau joined Branchip and so it could not have come as any surprise that when Chris Stevens recruited him to his position it must have been on the basis that he would be selling IP not chips.
In his response to the Hans Peter question he states “they do not realize most designs start with a chip for a PoC and later develop an ASIC.”
Apparently at his initial on the job training Chris Stevens failed to mention to him that Brainchip had available the AKD1000 proof of concept (PoC) chip and that AKD1500 was due to tape out within a short while and the AKD1500 proof of concept chips would be available mid year.
If anyone doubts that AKD1000 was a proof of concept chip all they need do is go back to 2020 and listen to one of the many interviews done by the then CEO Mr. Dinardo who on many occasions used this very term 'proof of concept' to describe AKD1000 and stated that it was required by those companies they were dealing with who were deciding whether to proceed with AKIDA and that this was entirely understandable given a company would need to invest 30, 40 or 50 million dollars to design and bring a product to market.
Though the CEO Mr. Dinardo had left by the time Jens Paetau arrived Rob Telson who worked closely with Mr. Dinardo along with Peter van der Made and Anil Mankar and many others also understood the importance of proof of concept chips.
Apparently as part of his own due diligence he missed the statement made by Sean Hehir his CEO that a proof of concept AKIDA 2.0 would likely be produced after the IP was publicly released. As we all know once you settle on the IP design you then have to have engineering work on the layout for the proof of concept chip so from IP to proof of concept chip in hand necessarily takes some time.
For those of you who follow such things the first release of the AKIDA 2.0 specs indicated that 'P' would have a capacity of 50 TOPS however after it was in the hands of the early access customers some further upgrades by way of adding extra nodes were made lifting 'P' to 131 TOPS. It might be thought sensible to not race in and produce a proof of concept chip until you have settled on the IP design but I will leave that to others better qualified to say.
He also appears to have missed the announcement that Brainchip and VVDN will be releasing an AKIDA EDGE Box at CES 2024 and advance orders will be taken thereafter. Sean Hehir CEO has not used the term proof of concept but has described it as something which Brainchip itself will use as a demonstrator with customers.
Clearly having been brought on by Chris Stevens there are lines between which on can read here that Jens Paetau's skill set and or personality may not have met the expectations of the new Vice President of Sales Steve Thorne and that he was likely given a heads up at Christmas drinks closing off the 2023 financial year in the USA that he did not form part of future planning. The fact that he was looking for a position between Christmas and New Year fits neatly with this scenario having immediately before Christmas been talking up his attendance for Brainchip at sensor tradeshows in 2024.
The fact that Jens Paetau has relied upon flawed facts to enhance his job prospects when asked why he was leaving Brainchip destroys his credibility in my opinion but whether he stays or goes is actually not for me to judge as an outsider but if he has been asked to move on by the new Vice President of Sales then his character as evidenced in these posts would not give me pause to doubt the correctness of that decision.
My opinion only DYOR
Fact Finder
A little bit of historical context to start with:
Sean Hehir interview with Mark Kennis after 2022 AGM - extract below
Sean: But what I said yesterday at our AGM, I think is very, very true. We spent nine years building this amazing technology. It’s transformational in its capability and powerful, but we were not doing enough in our go-to-market motion. So, I started to build the go-to-market motion, and I laid about five or six steps.
One was clarifying the business model. That was very, very important. Chips or IP?
We clarified that it’s IP.
A really important step.
We do have chips available, boards and things like that, but the revenue streams of the company are gonna be IP.” - (note the admission by Sean Hehir here that they have PoC's available.)
This was six to seven months before Jens Paetau joined Branchip and so it could not have come as any surprise that when Chris Stevens recruited him to his position it must have been on the basis that he would be selling IP not chips.
In his response to the Hans Peter question he states “they do not realize most designs start with a chip for a PoC and later develop an ASIC.”
Apparently at his initial on the job training Chris Stevens failed to mention to him that Brainchip had available the AKD1000 proof of concept (PoC) chip and that AKD1500 was due to tape out within a short while and the AKD1500 proof of concept chips would be available mid year.
If anyone doubts that AKD1000 was a proof of concept chip all they need do is go back to 2020 and listen to one of the many interviews done by the then CEO Mr. Dinardo who on many occasions used this very term 'proof of concept' to describe AKD1000 and stated that it was required by those companies they were dealing with who were deciding whether to proceed with AKIDA and that this was entirely understandable given a company would need to invest 30, 40 or 50 million dollars to design and bring a product to market.
Though the CEO Mr. Dinardo had left by the time Jens Paetau arrived Rob Telson who worked closely with Mr. Dinardo along with Peter van der Made and Anil Mankar and many others also understood the importance of proof of concept chips.
Apparently as part of his own due diligence he missed the statement made by Sean Hehir his CEO that a proof of concept AKIDA 2.0 would likely be produced after the IP was publicly released. As we all know once you settle on the IP design you then have to have engineering work on the layout for the proof of concept chip so from IP to proof of concept chip in hand necessarily takes some time.
For those of you who follow such things the first release of the AKIDA 2.0 specs indicated that 'P' would have a capacity of 50 TOPS however after it was in the hands of the early access customers some further upgrades by way of adding extra nodes were made lifting 'P' to 131 TOPS. It might be thought sensible to not race in and produce a proof of concept chip until you have settled on the IP design but I will leave that to others better qualified to say.
He also appears to have missed the announcement that Brainchip and VVDN will be releasing an AKIDA EDGE Box at CES 2024 and advance orders will be taken thereafter. Sean Hehir CEO has not used the term proof of concept but has described it as something which Brainchip itself will use as a demonstrator with customers.
Clearly having been brought on by Chris Stevens there are lines between which on can read here that Jens Paetau's skill set and or personality may not have met the expectations of the new Vice President of Sales Steve Thorne and that he was likely given a heads up at Christmas drinks closing off the 2023 financial year in the USA that he did not form part of future planning. The fact that he was looking for a position between Christmas and New Year fits neatly with this scenario having immediately before Christmas been talking up his attendance for Brainchip at sensor tradeshows in 2024.
The fact that Jens Paetau has relied upon flawed facts to enhance his job prospects when asked why he was leaving Brainchip destroys his credibility in my opinion but whether he stays or goes is actually not for me to judge as an outsider but if he has been asked to move on by the new Vice President of Sales then his character as evidenced in these posts would not give me pause to doubt the correctness of that decision.
My opinion only DYOR
Fact Finder
Last edited:
wilzy123
Founding Member
Ha ha you'll be the first one whinging mate,Why is Sean getting these shares, why haven't we signed another IP License
Please use coherent English on this forum. Otherwise, it'll just continue to look like you're talking to yourself, and we might be missing out on a lot of valuable commentary. Thanks.
David holland
Regular
I'll use what I like, did you ask the family member re putting pictures up without there permission
NVIDIA DRIVE on LinkedIn: Xiaomi says its SU7 EV can outperform Porsche and has more tech than Tesla
Congrats to Xiaomi Technology on the launch of the SU7 ecotech sedan, powered by #NVIDIA DRIVE Orin. #electricvehicles #xiaomisu7 https://lnkd.in/g4_t-nwm
Xiaomi hired talents from the auto industry to realize this project. Most notably, CEO Lei Jun claimed that Tianyuan Li, formerly of BMW's iX series and iVision concepts, offered himself to Xiaomi's auto design team. Li was also joined by James Qiu, who had previously worked on Mercedes-Benz's Vision EQXX design. (!!!!!!
) They later recruited Chris Bangle, a BMW veteran, to be their design consultant.
Damo4
Regular
Well said FF!
Also not sure how many here have been involved in shortlisting or interviewing, but when asking a candidate why they left their previous role, and their response is criticism of the company, it's a huge RED flag.
At least thats my experience, the few candidates have usually gone on to have issues with either their colleagues or management.
Kachoo
Regular
With regards to The posts on LinkedIn by Jenns, reading them again.
He used past tense worked at BRN is it possible he got the sack yesterday ? So his comments seem more directed at the company negatively as sales always need to point to they are correct and operations is wrong. Still unprofessional IMO.
As to why we do not know maybe his performance was in question and BRN have another hire in sites and need to make room. Or possibly they just don't need that position speculation.
Its not uncommon when a shake up happens the team is reviewed and changes made to create synergies.
Let's put it out like this Poor sales performance on Chris and Jenns. Is the product bad or are they not performing and selling the value of akida well.
We have a New CTO and Sales VP they have plans and styles of delivery. ARM does IP successfully that said maybe they want new blood to drive the sale.
People that have short stays at many companies are different then those that work a long time. Both Jenns and Chris stays are short. Toni and Steve seem to be long timers and maybe they are looking at this for the long run. The joys of hiring.
I know we bag the CEO but if he is calling the shots and making changes he is not sitting on his butt doing nothing. Its all business. Both our new recruitment are active and engaging more then the past salary collectors. Now we need sales and deal. We never had deal that in the past year so is this a loss or gain ask your self. The CEO runs a company yes does some sales but if he is running to the meeting with these guys clearly he needs better people in there that can do it on their own.
It is what it is.
He used past tense worked at BRN is it possible he got the sack yesterday ? So his comments seem more directed at the company negatively as sales always need to point to they are correct and operations is wrong. Still unprofessional IMO.
As to why we do not know maybe his performance was in question and BRN have another hire in sites and need to make room. Or possibly they just don't need that position speculation.
Its not uncommon when a shake up happens the team is reviewed and changes made to create synergies.
Let's put it out like this Poor sales performance on Chris and Jenns. Is the product bad or are they not performing and selling the value of akida well.
We have a New CTO and Sales VP they have plans and styles of delivery. ARM does IP successfully that said maybe they want new blood to drive the sale.
People that have short stays at many companies are different then those that work a long time. Both Jenns and Chris stays are short. Toni and Steve seem to be long timers and maybe they are looking at this for the long run. The joys of hiring.
I know we bag the CEO but if he is calling the shots and making changes he is not sitting on his butt doing nothing. Its all business. Both our new recruitment are active and engaging more then the past salary collectors. Now we need sales and deal. We never had deal that in the past year so is this a loss or gain ask your self. The CEO runs a company yes does some sales but if he is running to the meeting with these guys clearly he needs better people in there that can do it on their own.
It is what it is.
David holland
Regular
The CEO Is in charge, if his team aren't up to it or disruptive or whatever the reason , The CEO needs results and has shown good leadership thus far
The Pope
Regular
Definitely will not be whinging. You sound like the champ of whinging. Any chance you hang out with mickleboro?Ha ha you'll be the first one whinging mate,Why is Sean getting these shares, why haven't we signed another IP License
If you actually understood why Sean is getting shares (performance based to his KPI) etc then would you stop whinging?
Suggest reading the BRN annual reports for factual info or maybe Fact Finder can send you a link to one of his previous posts so you can get up to speed. As always DYOR. Hope you have a happy new year.
FJ-215
Regular
Fullmoonfever
Top 20
Pretty sure FF previously outlined the outcome re a second strike vote but hey why not repeat it fwiw.Ha ha you'll be the first one whinging mate,Why is Sean getting these shares, why haven't we signed another IP License
I posted the below elsewhere to clear things up for some who don't get it.
Posters banging on about Sean and getting rid of him by using the 2 strike rule don't seem to understand that a spill will be about potentially everyone else on the board depending on the outcome of a subsequent spill meeting "excluding" him.
Highlighted a bit below to make it simple....he is essentially the MD.
What is the two strikes rule?
In summary, the two strikes rule is a staged process that works like this.
- At its annual general meeting (AGM), the company must put a resolution to approve the remuneration report to shareholders. If more than 25 per cent of eligible shareholders vote against the resolution, the company receives a ‘first strike’.
- At the following year’s AGM, the company must again put a resolution to approve the remuneration report to shareholders. If, in that year, more than 25 per cent of the eligible shareholders again vote against the resolution, the company receives a ‘second strike’.
- If the company receives two consecutive ‘no’ votes on the remuneration report resolutions, then the company must immediately put to the AGM at which the second ‘no’ vote was cast a resolution to hold a spill meeting.
- If the majority of those at the AGM eligible to vote on the spill resolution vote to support the spill resolution, then all board positions (except for the managing director) are declared vacant and become open for election, and a special meeting must then be held within 90 days of the spill resolution — the extraordinary general meeting (EGM).
- The EGM will then consider whether to spill some or all of the board.
Fullmoonfever
Top 20
Just for a bit of additional perspective, this blog post gives a bit of background analysis and data on some additional impacts for consideration.
https://www.therewardpractice.com.au/can-a-strike-affect-company-share-price/
Does The ‘Two-Strikes’ Law Really Matter? We researched whether or not a ‘strike’ can affect company share price – the results suggest yes it can make a material difference.September 20, 2023
Effective July 1, 2011 the Corporations Act wasamended to include what’s known as the “two-strikes” law.
The aim was to hold directors of publicly traded Australian companies accountable for board and executive remuneration. Fast forward a decade, whilst the number of companies receiving a ‘strike’ each year seems relatively minor (e.g., 17 companies in the ASX 300 in 2022), the impact of the ‘two-strikes’ law on the remuneration landscape has seen increased levels of transparency, strengthened alignment of pay with performance and greater shareholder engagement. There are, however, lingering questions of its effectiveness such as the ‘strike’ not always reflecting the views of majority shareholders and the significant influence of proxy advisors on voting outcomes. A further question is to what extent does a ‘strike’ influence shareholder views and the subsequent effect on share price?
If a company’s remuneration report outlining salary and incentives of key management personnel (KMP) receives a ‘no’ vote of 25% or greater from shareholders at the annual general meeting, the company receives a first ‘strike’.
If the following year’s remuneration report also receives a ‘no’ vote of 25% or more, the company receives a second ‘strike’. When a second ‘strike’ occurs, shareholders vote then and there to decide whether company directors must stand for re-election. This is known as a ‘spill’ vote. If the spill vote passes (i.e., 50% or more of eligible votes cast), a spill meeting is held within 90 days and the directors stand for re-election.
Some market pundits suggest that ‘say-on-pay’ votes are reflective of not only shareholder satisfaction around remuneration, but also broader governance and strategic direction. If shareholders are voting against remuneration reports, it may be an indication of dissatisfaction in general and can be viewed within the market as a ‘signal to sell’.
For companies that received a ‘strike’ during this period, we posed two questions relating to the share price in the year that followed:
*Note calculations based on closing share price day prior to AGM and closing share price last trading day of financial year.
Design the right structure
Developing a strong remuneration structure and strategy that is tailor-made to suit a company’s size, growth stage, industry and goals is the first step towards mitigating a risk of a strike. When a company’s remuneration structure is appropriately aligned with these aspects, it can appear as indicative of good governance across the board. With ‘at risk’ pay comprising up to 70% of executives total remuneration in ASX300 companies, getting incentive structures right should be a key focus. See our blogDesigning Employee Incentives For ROIfor more information.
Determine appropriate quantum
An effective remuneration benchmarking methodology is a useful means of developing appropriate quantum when it comes to executive pay in particular. Equally important is ensuring that incentive payouts are in alignment with overall company performance. This can help a company steer clear of negative voting outcomes. See our most recentRemuneration Pulsefor more information on market trends regarding remuneration quantum.
Provide effective disclosures
Clear and comprehensive communication around what is being paid, combined with detailed rationale aroundwhyandhowit’s being paid go a long way with company stakeholders. It’s easy (and common) for companies to omit key details in remuneration disclosures and that can have an effect on shareholder votes. See our blog3 Strategies To Improve Your Remuneration Reportfor more information on how to create an effective rem report.
https://www.therewardpractice.com.au/can-a-strike-affect-company-share-price/
Does The ‘Two-Strikes’ Law Really Matter? We researched whether or not a ‘strike’ can affect company share price – the results suggest yes it can make a material difference.September 20, 2023
Effective July 1, 2011 the Corporations Act wasamended to include what’s known as the “two-strikes” law.
The aim was to hold directors of publicly traded Australian companies accountable for board and executive remuneration. Fast forward a decade, whilst the number of companies receiving a ‘strike’ each year seems relatively minor (e.g., 17 companies in the ASX 300 in 2022), the impact of the ‘two-strikes’ law on the remuneration landscape has seen increased levels of transparency, strengthened alignment of pay with performance and greater shareholder engagement. There are, however, lingering questions of its effectiveness such as the ‘strike’ not always reflecting the views of majority shareholders and the significant influence of proxy advisors on voting outcomes. A further question is to what extent does a ‘strike’ influence shareholder views and the subsequent effect on share price?
What is a ‘strike’?
It works like this:If a company’s remuneration report outlining salary and incentives of key management personnel (KMP) receives a ‘no’ vote of 25% or greater from shareholders at the annual general meeting, the company receives a first ‘strike’.
If the following year’s remuneration report also receives a ‘no’ vote of 25% or more, the company receives a second ‘strike’. When a second ‘strike’ occurs, shareholders vote then and there to decide whether company directors must stand for re-election. This is known as a ‘spill’ vote. If the spill vote passes (i.e., 50% or more of eligible votes cast), a spill meeting is held within 90 days and the directors stand for re-election.
What impact does a ‘strike’ have on a company?
When a company receives a ‘strike’, beyond the legal responses that follow, the personal impact on boards and executives can be profound. It is effectively shareholders saying “you’re on notice,” and may cause considerable reputational damage to the company and its board – but that may not be the only impact.Historical academic research of ASX companiesand aUS studyfrom 2020 shows that shareholder ‘no’ votes on remuneration may also trigger significant drops in share price – on average 15 per cent in the following year.Some market pundits suggest that ‘say-on-pay’ votes are reflective of not only shareholder satisfaction around remuneration, but also broader governance and strategic direction. If shareholders are voting against remuneration reports, it may be an indication of dissatisfaction in general and can be viewed within the market as a ‘signal to sell’.
Can a ‘strike’ affect company share price?
To put this theory to the test, we looked at companies in the ASX 300 that received a strike from 2016 to 2022.For companies that received a ‘strike’ during this period, we posed two questions relating to the share price in the year that followed:
1) What is the likelihood of a share price reduction*?
The graph below shows that there is a greater than 50% chance of a share price drop following a ‘strike’.
2) If there was a share price reduction*, what was the average drop?
The graph below shows that if there is a share price drop it is by approximately 30% on average.
*Note calculations based on closing share price day prior to AGM and closing share price last trading day of financial year.
| The results of this analysis reinforce the findings from the UBS research and academic studies, suggesting a shareholder ‘no’ vote on the remuneration report can materially hurt the value of the company. | |
| No data available in table |
How can companies avoid a ‘strike’ ?
To minimise the risk of organisational complications that may arise as a result of a ‘no’ vote on remuneration reports, we offer the following 3 suggestions:Design the right structure
Developing a strong remuneration structure and strategy that is tailor-made to suit a company’s size, growth stage, industry and goals is the first step towards mitigating a risk of a strike. When a company’s remuneration structure is appropriately aligned with these aspects, it can appear as indicative of good governance across the board. With ‘at risk’ pay comprising up to 70% of executives total remuneration in ASX300 companies, getting incentive structures right should be a key focus. See our blogDesigning Employee Incentives For ROIfor more information.
Determine appropriate quantum
An effective remuneration benchmarking methodology is a useful means of developing appropriate quantum when it comes to executive pay in particular. Equally important is ensuring that incentive payouts are in alignment with overall company performance. This can help a company steer clear of negative voting outcomes. See our most recentRemuneration Pulsefor more information on market trends regarding remuneration quantum.
Provide effective disclosures
Clear and comprehensive communication around what is being paid, combined with detailed rationale aroundwhyandhowit’s being paid go a long way with company stakeholders. It’s easy (and common) for companies to omit key details in remuneration disclosures and that can have an effect on shareholder votes. See our blog3 Strategies To Improve Your Remuneration Reportfor more information on how to create an effective rem report.
DerAktienDude
Regular
Calm down. Not everyone is a native English speaker. Keep your superiority complex aside. It’s just a language and you fully understood him. You’re looking as much of a fool with your behaviour as raging posters throwing tantrums.
wilzy123
Founding Member
Similar threads
