I guess you choose to either believe them or not.
It's really down to each investors judgement.
For what its worth these are my impressions of todays AGM which I watched online.
Some people have previously determined viewpoints and that tends to colour what they see appropriately.
Vianna, as chair of the meeting, is required to conduct it in a safe and orderly manner.
In that role he has the authority to shut down discussion when it is spiralling out of control, which is exactly what he did when that bloke got out of hand, trying to instigate a yelling match, towards the end.
Beyond that, I saw him take questions as they were offered.
I thought he did, as usual, a good job.
His very early remarks addressed the redomicile "elephant in the room", and as I see it he gave a credible response.
As the BOD wanted to discuss the possibility's with a wider set of consultants than they are normally dealing with, and knowing the hysteria a "leak" of said information may cause, they provided us with a heads up. This is reasonable, in my opinion.
I think he got somewhat flustered and lost his way a bit with the denying of the destination as USA, and in that regard I think he was in error.
It was good to hear FF and our Irish buddy put the issues of ASX announcements to them forcefully, and though it got a "noted" or two, I doubt we will get much movement on that. Antonio did claim the credit for this stance and as the Chair, I guess it's ultimately his call.
Sean does not present to a group well, which is a handicap in his position, but he is better, in my experience, and much less clunky, one on one.
He is driving his vision and whilst he is no show pony, I do think he is a good work horse.
As to whether we are on a profitable track, that is yet to be determined.
So far, and share price wise, which is of overwhelming importance to us, it is not performing.
But we are seeing some take up and the previous Tech roadmap was somewhat encouraging.
It also highlighted the need for constant and continuing innovation, which is best guided by continuing consultation with our still developing eco system and potential future clientele.
I wish Liebeskind would have made his presentation to us earlier than right before his vote, when he was clearly behind the eight ball given votes already cast. I thought him credible and did wind up voting for him even though I could see he wasn't likely to be successful.
I did this as a kind of non detrimental protest vote to boost his figures and perhaps give the current board some pause for thought.
There is obviously much they are privy too, that they cannot disclose publicly at this time.
This will always be the situation with an emerging tech company such as BrainChip.
It is easy to tar them with the lifestyle co meme and be disgruntled with their remuneration packages.
If it's all a con, we've done our dough.
If they are real, and the God's smile on us, we are maybe onto a multi bag winner.
I guess you choose to either believe in them or not
