BRN Discussion Ongoing

[Cardpro]

@7für7

Wow, so the guy openly admits he has no real opinion of his own, but has no problem labeling shareholders as lazy couch potatoes stuffing their faces with pizza? That’s rich. Dismissing legitimate criticism by insulting the very people who own the company

No one’s asking for Sean to be a magician—but we do expect transparency, accountability, and results after years of promises. Instead, we get deflection, NDA smokescreens, and a fan club that defends poor performance by attacking anyone who dares speak up.

Calling that “entrepreneurial thinking”? Please. It’s just more spin. And if defending your vote requires insulting your fellow shareholders, maybe it’s not the rest of us with the negative attitude.

I don't have any problems with NDAs, but other than the words from management, theres nothing that aligns with them. Our revenue is close to nothing for years, no new IP contracts, no apparent mass produced products that contains Akida, no updates on any of our existing relationships - Ford, Merc, Valeo, NASA, and all these partnerships with other tiny companies, etc. Yes, we did hear about the recent new engagements, but that's still very early stage (SBIR - Small Business Innovation Research,
i.e. Research stage) and who knows, it might be another NASA...

So I find it very difficult to believe that we have 100s of EAPs/NDAs/engaged clients, etc., unless we can see some concrete evidence.

But they treat us like an idiots saying it takes time for adoption of new techs, etc., yet Sean/Peter have previously hinted us that revenues should flow soon but nothing yet...

IMO DYOR

 

[7für7]

@7für7

Wow, so the guy openly admits he has no real opinion of his own, but has no problem labeling shareholders as lazy couch potatoes stuffing their faces with pizza? That’s rich. Dismissing legitimate criticism by insulting the very people who own the company

No one’s asking for Sean to be a magician—but we do expect transparency, accountability, and results after years of promises. Instead, we get deflection, NDA smokescreens, and a fan club that defends poor performance by attacking anyone who dares speak up.

Calling that “entrepreneurial thinking”? Please. It’s just more spin. And if defending your vote requires insulting your fellow shareholders, maybe it’s not the rest of us with the negative attitude.

You keep throwing around accusations and direct insults without providing any meaningful arguments. I, on the other hand, simply pointed out how things work in the business world and gave a metaphorical example. If I happened to touch a nerve and you feel personally targeted, that’s not my fault. If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Getupthere]

You keep throwing around accusations and direct insults without providing any meaningful arguments. I, on the other hand, simply pointed out how things work in the business world and gave a metaphorical example. If I happened to touch a nerve and you feel personally targeted, that’s not my fault. If the shoe fits, wear it.

I’ve made my stance clear on where BRN currently stands. But let’s talk about something that actually matters: accountability.

In any functioning business from startups to multinationals accountability flows both ways. Staff are accountable to management for performance.

Management is accountable to the board and shareholders for delivering results.

And shareholders have the right and responsibility to demand transparency, ask tough questions, and push back when things don’t add up.

That’s not “negativity.” That’s just business. What’s not business is silencing criticism with personal attacks, or pretending legitimate concerns are just noise from the sidelines.

If BRN is serious about its future, then the culture around it needs to reflect that—open, honest, and results-driven.

 

[7für7]

I’ve made my stance clear on where BRN currently stands. But let’s talk about something that actually matters: accountability.

In any functioning business from startups to multinationals accountability flows both ways. Staff are accountable to management for performance.

Management is accountable to the board and shareholders for delivering results.

And shareholders have the right and responsibility to demand transparency, ask tough questions, and push back when things don’t add up.

That’s not “negativity.” That’s just business. What’s not business is silencing criticism with personal attacks, or pretending legitimate concerns are just noise from the sidelines.

If BRN is serious about its future, then the culture around it needs to reflect that—open, honest, and results-driven.

If you had read my previous posts, my stance on the current situation would already be clear to you. And as I’ve said before – if you feel attacked by the way I express myself metaphorically, that’s not something I can help.

You want to talk business? Fine. You’re a shareholder who’s lost their nerve or trust, expressing concerns and pointing out everything you believe is going wrong. That’s your right – and it’s your opinion. But do you really think the rest of us investors are too stupid to see the company’s shortcomings? Do you think there’s full transparency in the stock market?

Even in established corporations, we often find out what really happened internally only after it’s officially announced. Some people here act like they’re sitting on the board and entitled to internal company information. But that’s not how it works. Yes, you bought shares – but you didn’t sign a contract that grants you access to confidential processes.

We retail investors are told what concerns us – and usually nothing more. Or are you writing complaint emails to Apple because they don’t inform you in advance about internal developments, upcoming deals, or unreleased products?

That’s not realistic. This constant whining and trying to influence others with such posts mostly shows one thing: a lack of understanding of how the stock market really works. You have your vote – use it, just like everyone else.

And if you truly believe you should be demanding more – then do it: call the company, start a petition, take the official route. It’s that simple. Or act with your own company how you want. Your choice

 

[Getupthere]

If you had read my previous posts, my stance on the current situation would already be clear to you. And as I’ve said before – if you feel attacked by the way I express myself metaphorically, that’s not something I can help.

You want to talk business? Fine. You’re a shareholder who’s lost their nerve or trust, expressing concerns and pointing out everything you believe is going wrong. That’s your right – and it’s your opinion. But do you really think the rest of us investors are too stupid to see the company’s shortcomings? Do you think there’s full transparency in the stock market?

Even in established corporations, we often find out what really happened internally only after it’s officially announced. Some people here act like they’re sitting on the board and entitled to internal company information. But that’s not how it works. Yes, you bought shares – but you didn’t sign a contract that grants you access to confidential processes.

We retail investors are told what concerns us – and usually nothing more. Or are you writing complaint emails to Apple because they don’t inform you in advance about internal developments, upcoming deals, or unreleased products?

That’s not realistic. This constant whining and trying to influence others with such posts mostly shows one thing: a lack of understanding of how the stock market really works. You have your vote – use it, just like everyone else.

And if you truly believe you should be demanding more – then do it: call the company, start a petition, take the official route. It’s that simple. Or act with your own company how you want. Your choice

So let me get this straight..being a good shareholder now means keeping quiet, accepting whatever the company does, and not holding anyone accountable because we’re not on the board? That’s a convenient take.

You’re basically saying we should sit down and shut up while management operates behind closed doors, and that asking questions or expressing concerns publicly is somehow whining?
No…that sounds more like someone who’s given up on the role shareholders are supposed to play.

The irony here is that you’re defending a CEO you admit you can’t even fairly assess over the past 12 months because you don’t know what’s happening inside the company.
Exactly. That is the problem. Lack of transparency doesn’t excuse poor performance, it makes it worse.
If we can’t evaluate leadership because of opacity, that’s not a reason to back off..that’s a red flag.

And comparing a small cap company like BRN to Apple is just lazy. Apple has delivered, consistently. Investors give them the benefit of the doubt because they’ve earned it. BRN is still trying to earn that trust and part of that means listening to shareholders, not dismissing them.

No one here is demanding trade secrets. We’re asking for honest communication, tangible results, and accountability. If that offends you, maybe ask yourself why.

 

[Diogenese]

Thanks for sharing, @Realinfo.

The issue with ASX disclosure rules really needs to be clarified at the AGM, in my opinion. The "ASX rules" explanation is starting to feel like a manufactured excuse for why major revenue deals are absent, rather than a valid operational barrier.

Why is it that Weebit doesn't seem to face the same issues? So far, Coby Hannoch hasn't suggested that WBT needs to redomicile to the US because of concerns around ASX-induced confidentiality breaches. On the contrary, Coby has stated he expects another five agreements to be signed before the end of the year. In addition, I believe final signings with 3 fabs and 3 customers are all now being linked to payment incentives as a demonstration of management's confidence.

I find it very hard to swallow the excuse that ASX disclosure rules are the reason a major deal might never come to pass. BrainChip has operated under a complete cone of silence for years now. Isn't that, in itself, proof enough for potential partners to have confidence that confidentiality would be maintained — precisely because absolutely nothing has been announced?

Aside from which, as you mentioned, ASX Rule 3.1A specifically allows confidentiality if negotiations are ongoing and if the information remains confidential. As this has been independently confirmed with the ASX, it undermines BrainChip's argument completely.

Hi Bravo,

One thing which differentiates us from WBT is our yellow card from the "covert" Ford disclosure. This was on top of our hockey sticks own goal.

The ASX is run by the inmates, who were all burned by the dot.com explosion, and once bitten by something they do not understand ...

All in all, I think we are on an ASX watch list.

We have seen a lot of green shoots in the last few years. The question is whether they have withered in the ground, or whether they are just slow developers.

In hindsight, management made a rod for our own back when we went IP-only, just when Akida 1 saw the light of day. IP only is an extremely tough nut to crack, macadamia tough. This cut the ground from under our then sales force and gave away the first-to-market advantage which in turn could have built the IP demand - spilt milk.

The remarkable thing is that there was a growing interest in Akida 1000 SoC basically without any marketing/sales directed to that. Management learned too late that they had underestimated the utility of, and market for, Akida 1000.

Lesson learned belatedly - we are now diversifying our product lines to include chips and software.

I have always been a supporter of IP as a product line, but I was disappointed that we switched to IP-only, just as Akida 1000 became available. Basically we discarded a large market with comparatively low entry barriers, for a very narrow, high entry barrier market.

 

[7für7]

So let me get this straight..being a good shareholder now means keeping quiet, accepting whatever the company does, and not holding anyone accountable because we’re not on the board? That’s a convenient take.

You’re basically saying we should sit down and shut up while management operates behind closed doors, and that asking questions or expressing concerns publicly is somehow whining?
No…that sounds more like someone who’s given up on the role shareholders are supposed to play.

The irony here is that you’re defending a CEO you admit you can’t even fairly assess over the past 12 months because you don’t know what’s happening inside the company.
Exactly. That is the problem. Lack of transparency doesn’t excuse poor performance, it makes it worse.
If we can’t evaluate leadership because of opacity, that’s not a reason to back off..that’s a red flag.

And comparing a small cap company like BRN to Apple is just lazy. Apple has delivered, consistently. Investors give them the benefit of the doubt because they’ve earned it. BRN is still trying to earn that trust and part of that means listening to shareholders, not dismissing them.

No one here is demanding trade secrets. We’re asking for honest communication, tangible results, and accountability. If that offends you, maybe ask yourself why.

You’re not just voicing concerns…you’re building a narrative. One where everyone who doesn’t share your level of outrage is either naive, passive, or part of the problem. That’s not shareholder activism.. that’s agendasetting.

You’re pushing a black and white worldview like if someone questions your tone or approach, they must be defending management blindly. That’s not only intellectually lazy… it’s a classic tactic to discredit other voices and steer the conversation in one direction.

Yes, we all see the challenges. Yes, we’d all prefer more clarity and results. But let’s not pretend that constant public outrage, laced with sarcasm, is some kind of noble crusade. It’s influence seeking…and ironically, you accuse others of being passive while trying to sway sentiment in your favor.

I’m not against criticism. I’m against emotional manipulation disguised as concern. If your goal is real change, there are official, direct channels. But if your goal is to stir discontent and rally followers to your narrative, then let’s at least be honest about what this really is.

Have a nice weekend

 

[toasty]

When I was a senior exec in the software industry, you got 2, maybe 3, quarters to prove your plan by $$ in the order book. After that you were shown the door. In my view 3 1/2 years with no notable commercial success is WAY too long and indicates that either the plan was deficient from the start or the person reponsible for implementing it (CEO) is not up to the task. Either way the board needs to take some remedial action.

And speaking of not being up to the task, if management doesn't know enough about the disclosure rules of the exchange they are listed on to placate potential customers, then they have no place in a listed company. Or maybe they were lying to hide the real agenda????

 

[Getupthere]

When I was a senior exec in the software industry, you got 2, maybe 3, quarters to prove your plan by $$ in the order book. After that you were shown the door. In my view 3 1/2 years with no notable commercial success is WAY too long and indicates that either the plan was deficient from the start or the person reponsible for implementing it (CEO) is not up to the task. Either way the board needs to take some remedial action.

And speaking of not being up to the task, if management doesn't know enough about the disclosure rules of the exchange they are listed on to placate potential customers, then they have no place in a listed company. Or maybe they were lying to hide the real agenda????

BrainChip Holdings Ltd (BRN) Leadership & Management Team Analysis - Simply Wall St

Learn about BrainChip Holdings Ltd (BRN) stock's management team. Comprehensive performance, salary and tenure analysis for the CEO, board and leadership team.

simplywall.st

Forget about trying to break even for the financial year. Sean can’t even generate enough revenue to cover the costs of his yearly compensation.

 

[jrp173]

When I was a senior exec in the software industry, you got 2, maybe 3, quarters to prove your plan by $$ in the order book. After that you were shown the door. In my view 3 1/2 years with no notable commercial success is WAY too long and indicates that either the plan was deficient from the start or the person reponsible for implementing it (CEO) is not up to the task. Either way the board needs to take some remedial action.

And speaking of not being up to the task, if management doesn't know enough about the disclosure rules of the exchange they are listed on to placate potential customers, then they have no place in a listed company. Or maybe they were lying to hide the real agenda????

Well said. 10 years on the ASX and now they've got a problem with disclosure rules.. really..

Quite unbelievable....

They role out excuse after excuse...

 

[Guzzi62]

When I was a senior exec in the software industry, you got 2, maybe 3, quarters to prove your plan by $$ in the order book. After that you were shown the door. In my view 3 1/2 years with no notable commercial success is WAY too long and indicates that either the plan was deficient from the start or the person reponsible for implementing it (CEO) is not up to the task. Either way the board needs to take some remedial action.

And speaking of not being up to the task, if management doesn't know enough about the disclosure rules of the exchange they are listed on to placate potential customers, then they have no place in a listed company. Or maybe they were lying to hide the real agenda????

I disagree,

The company are trying to enter market technology adoption with world-changing tech which can't be compared to what you are talking about IMO.

The tech world is currently on an AI wave, with GPU's ever more powerful, burning energy in an alarming rate.

They will hopefully soon realize that it is not the way forward, and we have to move as much processing as possible to the edge.

This doesn't happen overnight, try reading this: Understanding the Technology Adoption Lifecycle.

Understanding the Technology Adoption Lifecycle

Discover how the Technology Adoption Lifecycle helps businesses navigate the challenges of bringing new products to market. Learn about the five stages of adoption, from Innovators to Laggards, and how each segment impacts product strategy. By understanding these stages, companies can tailor...

www.starthawk.io

We are in the early stages of adoption, space and military are slowly "seeing the Akida technology" which is very encouraging.

White papers are being written using Akida by universities and by companies' development departments, sometimes even in cooperation, another good sign that they find it intriguing and checking it out, impressed by the low power consumption with fewer parts in a circuit board.

I don't think you can blame management for this but okay their expectations isn't well-timed, it's a year or even maybe 2 too early.

I think we will eventually see a break though later this year and the next. Yes, a bitter pill to shallow, but it is what it is, take it or leave it.

I got some inspiration from poster Observerr on HC, he is really well-informed about the technology and the market, your posts are awesome, thank you sir.

​

​

​

 

[rgupta]

When I was a senior exec in the software industry, you got 2, maybe 3, quarters to prove your plan by $$ in the order book. After that you were shown the door. In my view 3 1/2 years with no notable commercial success is WAY too long and indicates that either the plan was deficient from the start or the person reponsible for implementing it (CEO) is not up to the task. Either way the board needs to take some remedial action.

And speaking of not being up to the task, if management doesn't know enough about the disclosure rules of the exchange they are listed on to placate potential customers, then they have no place in a listed company. Or maybe they were lying to hide the real agenda????

Hi Toasty judging a new technology and that too sale as an ip is expected to take much more time than writing a code for existing technology. So yes we have to give benefit of doubt to brainchip management.
Regarding ten years listed on brainchip and still does not know inns and out of brainchip I think brainchip management is very poor here.

 

[rgupta]

I disagree,

The company are trying to enter market technology adoption with world-changing tech which can't be compared to what you are talking about IMO.

The tech world is currently on an AI wave, with GPU's ever more powerful, burning energy in an alarming rate.

They will hopefully soon realize that it is not the way forward, and we have to move as much processing as possible to the edge.

This doesn't happen overnight, try reading this: Understanding the Technology Adoption Lifecycle.

Understanding the Technology Adoption Lifecycle

Discover how the Technology Adoption Lifecycle helps businesses navigate the challenges of bringing new products to market. Learn about the five stages of adoption, from Innovators to Laggards, and how each segment impacts product strategy. By understanding these stages, companies can tailor...

www.starthawk.io

We are in the early stages of adoption, space and military are slowly "seeing the Akida technology" which is very encouraging.

White papers are being written using Akida by universities and by companies' development departments, sometimes even in cooperation, another good sign that they find it intriguing and checking it out, impressed by the low power consumption with fewer parts in a circuit board.

I don't think you can blame management for this but okay their expectations isn't well-timed, it's a year or even maybe 2 too early.

I think we will eventually see a break though later this year and the next. Yes, a bitter pill to shallow, but it is what it is, take it or leave it.

I got some inspiration from poster Observerr on HC, he is really well-informed about the technology and the market, your posts are awesome, thank you sir.

​

​

​

Guzzi you may be right, but we only know as much as management is letting us know. So based on the available information it looks more like excuse than a reason here.
Dyor

 

[Deadpool]

My thoughts right now Get are ones of concern.

For mine, the announcement that Brainchip was considering moving to a US listing was a genuine shock. I contacted the company about my concerns, which centred around the following premise…that unless there was at least one major revenue generating deal announced, that would increase the share price significantly, then it would be grossly premature to move to a US listing. I added that existing shareholders value would be destroyed if the company moved without at least one major revenue producing deal in the kit bag.

The response from the company shocked me even more than their original announcement to consider moving. I was told, that because of the ASX disclosure rules, a major deal may never happen. I was told that the entities Brainchip was dealing with might never do business with us whilst we were listed on the ASX, because they were not prepared to risk being forced to reveal financial details, and information about how they were going to use our IP.

This prompted my discussions with the ASX about their interpretation of their very own disclosure rules, particularly rule 3.1A. They told me very clearly, that if Brainchip and a customer wanted to maintain confidentiality about a deal they were contemplating, then the onus was on both parties to remain silent about it. As long as confidentiality remained, there was no requirement to disclose the deal…it could remain confidential under ASX disclosure rule 3.1A.

When I told the company this, I used both the unnecessary Ford ASX announcement back in May 2020, that most likely caused Ford to end their collaboration with us, and Mercedes self outing themselves with press releases in January 2022, which has caused complete silence from them about us ever since.

Love them or hate them…after my discussions with the ASX, I cannot believe that the company would consider a premature, highly damaging for existing shareholders move to a US listing, because of the ASX disclosure rules.

Call me a conspiracy theorist…but I believe there is another agenda .

So these are my thoughts right now Get.

Hi mate, I seem to recall a little wager you put forward back in the day.
"If our share price is not at least $5.00 by this time next year, I’ll shout everyone here lunch at The Briars"

LOL Nah its all good mate, just pissing about

 

[Cardpro]

When I was a senior exec in the software industry, you got 2, maybe 3, quarters to prove your plan by $$ in the order book. After that you were shown the door. In my view 3 1/2 years with no notable commercial success is WAY too long and indicates that either the plan was deficient from the start or the person reponsible for implementing it (CEO) is not up to the task. Either way the board needs to take some remedial action.

And speaking of not being up to the task, if management doesn't know enough about the disclosure rules of the exchange they are listed on to placate potential customers, then they have no place in a listed company. Or maybe they were lying to hide the real agenda????

Lol, just imagine... if they had made all these partnership announcements on the ASX, only to find out after years & years, our revenue still doesn't line up...

Sadly, now I have more faith on ASX Listing Rules than the management...

Also... the Ford announcement... it never lead us to anywhere, but the odd thing is, there were no further updates at all. If it has ended, I would assume it should be disclosed on ASX...but nothing...

Dyor imo only

 

[manny100]

There is a 5 year plan in place approved by the BOD. The content has not been made public.
No doubt the plan included timelines for ecosystem developments, tech advancements, deals and revenue.
It may be the case that revenue was not forecast until year5?
As far as the Key Management Personnel Remuneration goes it was covered in detail in the 2024 Annual Report from page 14 - page 37. The report was audited and it's a huge read.
It's interesting reading and i recommend that all holders should read it.
As a result of the 2nd strike at the AGM on 21/5/24 the BOD retained an independent consultant to review the compensation plan and provide advice (page 17).
Page 18 plus contain recommendations adopted
The committee intends to ensure executive share ownership progressively to align them with shareholders interests in the long term outcome of the company.
See 2024 Annual report link attached.

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02918857-2A1581370&v=7bc42bd11d853ed5e8c28f2ffcd6a069ee5cd6b4

 

[Cardpro]

There is a 5 year plan in place approved by the BOD. The content has not been made public.
No doubt the plan included timelines for ecosystem developments, tech advancements, deals and revenue.
It may be the case that revenue was not forecast until year5?
As far as the Key Management Personnel Remuneration goes it was covered in detail in the 2024 Annual Report from page 14 - page 37. The report was audited and it's a huge read.
It's interesting reading and i recommend that all holders should read it.
As a result of the 2nd strike at the AGM on 21/5/24 the BOD retained an independent consultant to review the compensation plan and provide advice (page 17).
Page 18 plus contain recommendations adopted
The committee intends to ensure executive share ownership progressively to align them with shareholders interests in the long term outcome of the company.
See 2024 Annual report link attached.

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02918857-2A1581370&v=7bc42bd11d853ed5e8c28f2ffcd6a069ee5cd6b4

Lol, independent... hired by themselves...

 

[HopalongPetrovski]

Lol, independent... hired by themselves...

Who else exactly were you expecting was going to hire and pay this independent consultant?
Were you going to pay for it?

 

[Easytiger]

Alright. Let’s imagine you personally employed Sean as the CEO of your company and were conducting his annual performance review. How would you rate his performance over the past 12 months, on a scale of 1 to 10?

Board must assess CEO against the achievement of the 5 year board-approved sales/revenue plan. The Board are saying CEO has achieved the current year plan and they think he has the potential to achieve future year’s sales/revenue plans and budgets.

As we don’t know the board approved sales/revenue plan, it’s impossible to rate the CEO. To answer that question, we need to press the Board at the AGM, what percentage of the sales / revenue budget has the CEO achieved - this is the tell!

 

[Pom down under]

I have some issues with the company and how things are going, but wow I’ve never read such negative shit ever in my life and it doesn’t take a brain scientist to work out who is posting all this crap