Apologies @colb, I respect your input into these threads but I...

Apologies @colb, I respect your input into these threads but I am going to disagree with you here.

What you are postulating is that US investors 'place too great an emphasis on the future potential of tech stocks' and consequently inaccurately value them.

Currently, the most valuable companies in the world: Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Facebook, AMD, (the list goes on) are all pure-play technology stocks founded, built and listed in the US.

Further, the US has - for decades - been the global leader in technological innovation and commercial success (namely through Silicon Valley). I.e. US investors have had years and multiple successful tech companies to help refine their comps models and valuation metrics.

What these two points indicate is as follows:

1) US investors valued these aforementioned companies at astronomical P/E ratios and valuation multiples relative to industry standards during their infant years and even still to this day, because they saw 'the potential' you are mocking. Ironically, this same potential has now lead these companies to become the largest, most valuable and powerful companies in the world. So, your argument that 'potential' is a misnomer and not an accurate valuation consideration is comical given this is what many of these global powerhouses ran off for years. I recommend reading up on 'The Theory of Reflexivity' - a theory George Soros swears by - and which put simply, argues that the subjective beliefs of investors influence the fundamentals of a stock. I.e. People believed Amazon for years was going to evolve and disrupt numerous industries, and this speculative subjective belief, in turn pushed up the valuation and stock price of Amazon. As a result, Amazon was then able to exploit better capital raising terms and more favourable deals with clients and customers given its incredibly positive market perception, and hence one could argue that it is the 'potential' US investors saw in Amazon from the outset, that contributed to its success today. So, concisely, I would disagree with your argument that the 'potential' US investors recognise early on in technology stocks lives is in fact misplaced.

2) US investors have had the opportunity and luxury of being at the forefront of valuing the biggest, and most successful tech stocks, for decades. The technological development scene in the US accelerated and progressed far faster than most other developed countries, especially Australia. So, US investors have had time to refine and develop these valuation metrics and analysis. But perhaps more acutely; because they have had tech stock after tech stock become globally successful, they have built experience that many other international investors simply don't possess. Put another way; Australian investors have experience, insight and intuition investing in the mining and resource sector that, I would argue, excels relative to other international investors - because this arena is on our door step and dominates our financial stock market. Well, technology for US investors is what mining is for Australian investors. So, following your argument that US investors cannot accurately value technology stocks; if that were the case, then we're all doomed, because out of anyone in the entire world, US investors are best placed to value tech stocks - so if they can't, then ASX investors definitely can't.

One final point, you state that 'ASX investors are conservative' and cautious, and value tech stocks logically off revenue milestones rather than 'pie in the sky potential.' This is the fundamental misconception that you, like many other ASX investors have, and the reason why TMT Analytics article is so astute and accurate. Technology stocks are not archaic industrial or consumer discretionary stocks. They don't grow at conservative 15-20% growth rates, annually for 10 years, and then slow to 3-5%. They don't have low operating margins and high costs. Instead, like we have seen time and time again in the likes of Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc - these companies have unlimited scalability, can grow exponentially (100% y/o/y), operate off low cost bases with high margins ... and this extreme growth can happen in a matter of years, if the technology is truly disruptive.

(It is this disruptive capability - and resultant exponential growth - that US investors consider as 'potential' and value into their US based stocks. Because, if the company does take hold of an industry - as history shows, the sky is the limit).

But then again, I guess we ASX investors are gurus at investing in stock markets, despite the majority of 15 most successful investors of all time and as well as the 20 highest paid hedge fund managers today all coming from the US. And hey, we ASX investors must also know how to invest in tech stocks even though we've arguably have had only one true tech success story being Atlassian, versus the US's 100+ multi-billionaire success stores (ironically, even Atlassian ended up listing on the Nasdaq).

I'm not suggesting TMT Analytic's stock recommendations are amazing. I'm not protecting Louis - he's a big boy and can look after himself. What I am saying is that, respectfully, you clearly aren't in the tech industry and cannot fully grasp the potential of not only BRN but more broadly the aggressive nature of technological disruption - if you did, you would comprehend the potential of not Brainchip Studio or Brainchip Accelerator, but of AKIDA to become the next Nvidia GPU processor for AI applications on a global scale.