Hi Dippy,
I agree with you that nobody, whether human or AI, can predict BrainChip’s future with certainty.
As I said in my post, it’s a ChatGPT generated valuation and because of that it’s probably not worth the paper it’s written on.
My point was not to outsource my thinking to a bot, but rather to use it deliberately to illustrate a difference in valuation frameworks, in response to a discussion suggesting a $20 billion acquisition at this point in time, which, in my view, is simply unrealistic given where the company is today.
Like you, I have faith in BrainChip's future success. That’s why I remain invested and (as others have stated) I’ll go down with the ship if I have to (although I’d much prefer to be on the deck sipping a pina colada).
You can attack the tool if you want, but I think it's harder to dismiss the argument it helped to frame which is that an acquisition price today usually reflects current reality plus a premium and true blue-sky valuations usually require a forcing event.
So, the takeaway for me wasn’t “this valuation is correct", rather it was that the logic highlights something pretty obvious (at least in my mind) which is that we need to sell licences and generate revenue before getting too far ahead of ourselves. For an acquisition to deliver an attractive outcome for shareholders, the company needs time to establish itself commercially and demonstrate sales traction. Until licences and revenue materially show up, any acquirer will heavily discount that future.
I use ChatGPT a lot in my line of work and I personally find it incredibly valuable. But, like any tool, it has strengths and limitations. In any case, I believe it served its purpose in this instance because it helped spark what I think is a valuable discussion and brought some different perspectives to the surface.
Regards,
B
good morning to down under
