Space Cadet
Regular
I cannot see why you can't set up your SMSF and transfer all your holdings to it.
I will have to look into it but that is loosely my plan. Been in over 10 years. Not getting screwed out of this.
SC
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
I will have to look into it but that is loosely my plan. Been in over 10 years. Not getting screwed out of this.
SC
Pom down under
Top 20
Don’t really think it makes a bloody difference if the share price rapidly disappears, as that’s what it’s been doing since I invested back in 2019 at 0.32 I think. So what’s your point?
The Pope
Regular
Hi Tezza
Are you sure and assume you asked the right questions as per my comments provided to the forum posted last Friday?
Superannuation investment options and performance | Cbus Super
We offer a range of investment options to suit your goals, time frame and preferred level of risk. Making an informed choice now can make a big difference to how much super you’ll have in retirement.
Food4 thought
Regular
You are being an ass DK161
What you are a
Haha loo.53 cents was my highest using my super, but I did miss out on just under $2but been picking them up and average nearly 0.25
Bravo
If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
My opinion for what it is worth...
The BOD needs to convince us, the shareholders, that domiciling in the US is the right move.
If they fail to do so, we will NOT approve.
Does the BOD really believe we’ll trust them based on empty promises alone, ahead of the approval timeframe?
Once bitten, twice shy.
I think we need more than vague assurances.
I strongly suspect the BOD has something up their sleeve. Why else would they be recommending such a manoeuvre?
No one would attempt a move like this without some level of confidence in future deals or strategic advantages, as doing otherwise would be sheer recklessness IMO.
The BOD needs to convince us, the shareholders, that domiciling in the US is the right move.
If they fail to do so, we will NOT approve.
Does the BOD really believe we’ll trust them based on empty promises alone, ahead of the approval timeframe?
Once bitten, twice shy.
I think we need more than vague assurances.
I strongly suspect the BOD has something up their sleeve. Why else would they be recommending such a manoeuvre?
No one would attempt a move like this without some level of confidence in future deals or strategic advantages, as doing otherwise would be sheer recklessness IMO.
DingoBorat
Slim
I should add, that there's also a yearly government charge of around $280, which you need to make a double payment of in the first year.I have a SMSF and it was "reasonably" easy to set up.
My process was audited..
Basic yearly cost for me, is $1100 and with contributions, the government will contribute $500 (for incomes $45400 to 60400).
There are also one off fees from time to time.
Government contributions | Australian Taxation Office
You may be eligible for the government's super co-contribution.www.ato.gov.au
Interestingly, they've been "reducing" the entitlement, from a maximum of $1500 for the years 2004 to 2009, to the present $500..
But this is skipped the 2nd year, unless I still owe it and they haven't chased it yet..
Also, people should know, that the costs of running the fund "can" be met from the fund.
Last edited:
HopalongPetrovski
I'm Spartacus!
Yeah. Let's hope so and that they will be at liberty to lay it out for us.
Problem is, if the board recommends this course of action as the way forward, and it gets voted down by retail holders, where does that leave us? These are the people we have in place to both steer and run the company.
If we voted this down, it is in effect a huge vote of no confidence in them, either leaving them disheartened and probably just going through the motions or requiring a board spill and replacement, probably including Sean which would effectively leave us rudderless for some period and potentially crashing the Company for good.
Not trying to be Captain Doom here but the idea of starting again with a replacement leadership team gives me the willies.
Calling a spade a spade mate. If you say you have been invested since 2015, it falsely implies that you are fully committed to the company and will never sell.
That was obviously not the case for jla.
People get cranky when they get exposed for who they really are (i.e. day traders).
The only way it will convince us to vote yes is to reveal a substantive contract with a top tier company / organisation.
That, and a commitment that shareholders will be guided through the whole process of redomiciling to the US. At the moment investors relations is a joke!
That would be an absolute disaster if the whole board left.
The coming AGM will be extremely important and interesting for everyone involved in any capacity.
They will have to convince shareholders on that meeting on the re-location, but considering what they said on the last one, they will have a hard time, because so far, empty promises!!
A couple of good IP deals before the meeting will go a long way to soften shareholders up a bit.
But despite all the negativity, I really hope a lot is going on behind the scenes, positive things.
Labsy
Regular
Did someone say "Staunch cult-affiliate"?
At your service....
Nah, just an opportunity....
Im almost certain we are Nasdaq bound.
The Nasdaq is a three tiered exchange: Nasdaq Capital, Nasdaq Global, and Nasdaq Global Elitr.
We land on Nasdaq Capital exchange with the least stringent requirements.
BRN NEEDS TO BE IN THE US for all the exciting news to come.
Let’s GO!
#ditchASXnow
The Nasdaq is a three tiered exchange: Nasdaq Capital, Nasdaq Global, and Nasdaq Global Elitr.
We land on Nasdaq Capital exchange with the least stringent requirements.
BRN NEEDS TO BE IN THE US for all the exciting news to come.
Let’s GO!
#ditchASXnow
FiveBucks
Regular
For me, the issue is that the domiciling announcement came off the back of another terrible report with very little positive commentary from the company.
If they had come out in the report and stated that prior to domiciling, we are anticipating on closing between 5-10 IP deals, or something to that effect, I'm sure that we would all be less concerned.
Right now, we are all shit scared that no more deals will be done prior to the us listing and we are all staring down the barrel of consolidation.
DingoBorat
Slim
I'm going to throw a few potentially crazy, not well thought out ideas, here..
The MegaChips IP Licence, affords "protection" and anonymity, from companies both using our IP directly through them and buying licences from them (which we know from at least one or two secured that way, through a quarterly report).
Hence Sean's now infamous..
"Watch the Financials"
Which to be fair, was before Russia invaded the Ukraine and the Worldwide economic downturn, which ensued.
Why can't a full licence be sold, or "arranged" with a similar "Umbrella" Company as MegaChips, in the US?
This would afford the same protections, of not having to report sensitive dealings, with the ASX, wouldn't it?..
Also, what about forming a fully owned subsidiary, in the US, for the same purpose?
I'm not sure of the ins and outs of that, but I know there would obviously be additional running costs involved (but it could be basically a skeleton company?)
This could also take advantage of any US based incentive schemes.
Thirdly and probably what may be my least popular idea..
What about just delisting from the ASX and running privately, until such time as the Company was "strong enough" to list on the NASDAQ?
A share trading platform can still be setup (we could get @zeeb0t to do it
) and this would eliminate shorters and ASX trading algorithms altogether.
Any additional cash needed, would also have to be raised privately.
As long as there was still a "market" for the shares, they would still have increasing/decreasing value, as assigned by supply and demand, dictated by the Company's progress and performance.
Shorting and manipulation of the stock of private companies is still possible, but not as easy or fluid, as cesspits like the ASX.
Also, very large valuations, can also be propelled by shorters and having the stock less available to trade, could deter investment.
Just ideas okay
The MegaChips IP Licence, affords "protection" and anonymity, from companies both using our IP directly through them and buying licences from them (which we know from at least one or two secured that way, through a quarterly report).
Hence Sean's now infamous..
"Watch the Financials"
Which to be fair, was before Russia invaded the Ukraine and the Worldwide economic downturn, which ensued.
Why can't a full licence be sold, or "arranged" with a similar "Umbrella" Company as MegaChips, in the US?
This would afford the same protections, of not having to report sensitive dealings, with the ASX, wouldn't it?..
Also, what about forming a fully owned subsidiary, in the US, for the same purpose?
I'm not sure of the ins and outs of that, but I know there would obviously be additional running costs involved (but it could be basically a skeleton company?)
This could also take advantage of any US based incentive schemes.
Thirdly and probably what may be my least popular idea..
What about just delisting from the ASX and running privately, until such time as the Company was "strong enough" to list on the NASDAQ?
A share trading platform can still be setup (we could get @zeeb0t to do it
) and this would eliminate shorters and ASX trading algorithms altogether.Any additional cash needed, would also have to be raised privately.
As long as there was still a "market" for the shares, they would still have increasing/decreasing value, as assigned by supply and demand, dictated by the Company's progress and performance.
Shorting and manipulation of the stock of private companies is still possible, but not as easy or fluid, as cesspits like the ASX.
Also, very large valuations, can also be propelled by shorters and having the stock less available to trade, could deter investment.
Just ideas okay
Dingo! Going private means you get bought out at today’s priceI'm going to throw a few potentially crazy, not well thought out ideas, here..
The MegaChips IP Licence, affords "protection" and anonymity, from companies both using our IP directly through them and buying licences from them (which we know from at least one or two secured that way, through a quarterly report).
Hence Sean's now infamous..
"Watch the Financials"
Which to be fair, was before Russia invaded the Ukraine and the Worldwide economic downturn, which ensued.
Why can't a full licence be sold, or "arranged" with a similar "Umbrella" Company as MegaChips, in the US?
This would afford the same protections, of not having to report sensitive dealings, with the ASX, wouldn't it?..
Also, what about forming a fully owned subsidiary, in the US, for the same purpose?
I'm not sure of the ins and outs of that, but I know there would obviously be additional running costs involved (but it could be basically a skeleton company?)
This could also take advantage of any US based incentive schemes.
Thirdly and probably what may be my least popular idea..
What about just delisting from the ASX and running privately, until such time as the Company was "strong enough" to list on the NASDAQ?
A share trading platform can still be setup (we could get @zeeb0t to do it
Any additional cash needed, would also have to be raised privately.
As long as there was still a "market" for the shares, they would still have increasing/decreasing value, as assigned by supply and demand, dictated by the Company's progress and performance.
Shorting and manipulation of the stock of private companies is still possible, but not as easy or fluid, as cesspits like the ASX.
Also, very large valuations, can also be propelled by shorters and having the stock less available to trade, could deter investment.
Just ideas okay
I know you wouldn’t want that.
DingoBorat
Slim
Bought out by who exactly?Dingo! Going private means you get bought out at today’s price
The Company is still worth 425 million AUD at yesterday's close.
Going private doesn't mean the Company gets bought out, as far as I know.
I've had a company go private before (9SP) and was not bought out.
I don't have a clue what they're doing now, but haven't checked to be honest.
There was a huge consolidation and refunding there, from memory though..
It means an entity has to purchase ALL outstanding shares. You get paid for the shares you own now, and you are out of the game.
DingoBorat
Slim
No, that's not what it means.
"If a company's stock is delisted from an exchange, shareholders still own their shares in the company, but the stock may trade over-the-counter, which could lead to decreased liquidity and less transparency for investors
Google about it..
Similar threads
