Fact Finder, appreciate your reply—but a few things need clearing up.
You say the ASX is “liquid,” and technically yes, trades happen. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right kind of liquidity. Choppy retail-driven trades with wide spreads don’t attract serious institutional investors. Brainchip’s issue isn’t that it can’t be bought—it’s that it’s being overlooked by the capital that actually matters in semis and AI.
On the OTC/ADR front—you’re right, they’re terrible. But suggesting U.S. investors should just open international accounts misses how markets work. Institutions don’t do that. Index funds don’t do that. Analysts don’t cover stocks they can’t easily model or access. And U.S. tech peers on the NASDAQ are pulling billions in valuation because they’re in that flow.
You mention currency risk, but let’s be real: the USD has historically been stronger and more stable than the AUD. An ASX-only listing forces U.S. investors to deal with conversion and brokerage friction for a tech company based in their own backyard. That’s backward.
Saying “if Brainchip can’t make it in Sydney, it can’t make it anywhere” is catchy—but flawed. Global companies scale where the capital is. Atlassian didn’t stay put. Canva didn’t. Neither did ResMed. They moved closer to their markets and money. That’s not failure—that’s growth.
As for “waiting until 2030” to revisit a move—by then, it could be too late. Structure matters now. Visibility, credibility, and access to strategic capital all influence whether Brainchip can close the partnerships it needs to grow. Listing mechanics aren’t a footnote—they’re part of the foundation.
This isn’t about ditching Australia. It’s about being serious on the world stage. Brainchip can’t afford to play in the little leagues while competing with companies on the NASDAQ getting five times the valuation with half the tech.
Let’s stop pretending capital markets don’t shape outcomes. They absolutely do.
(20min delay)