Because they are NDA's there's not much known and not much to discuss only spectulate. Many here do not like spectulation so? But this is not spectulation we can count out Intel being involved. Dr. Taylor has to much pride to be associated with them as he said and I support Dr. Taylor 100% and it seems like most everyone else does also. For sure management does as they have proven time after time.

Patience! Patience has to be our guide and it will reward us.

I just re-read this post by Chris that he posted in July and re posted on Apr.30 ..It kind of says it all. We are very lucky to have him as our IR guy

Worth reading again

Hi Everyone,

This is Christopher Chu, the IR representative for POET and senior management. Pardon my writing as this is an informal messageboard where IR personnel usually never opt to engage investors.

I usually go against the grain and do so operating under Reg. FD best practices. Meaning don't expect to see any forward looking information in this thread.

I just wanted to clarify some things here. First, I have worked in this industry for the better part of 14 years. I have been on teams that have performed IR advisory for some of the largest and smallest Companies in the world. This includes the IPO listing for Wipro, the largest privatization up to that point in the history of the Irish stock exchange at $3.5bn, the first Indian internet Company to be listed in the U.S., managed the dog and pony show in selecting I-Banks for a $20M raise for a Kosher food Company and the list goes on.

So I am not allergic to working for and dealing with smaller pre-revenue Companies, I work for at least 4 right now. What I am not in the habit of doing is being a stock promoter. I do not pump Companies. I handle investor relations. I provide fair and equal information flow to investors and provide granularity where I can. Often times I cannot provide information that would be selective disclosure to an individual no matter who that person is or thinks they are entitled to.

I believe in the Companies that I choose to work for. My own firm's parent Company is publicly listed on the LSE, as a firm, we are allergic to risk and do not work for hopeless Companies that have no chance of share appreciation or willingness to work towards better investor relations activities. It is very expensive for our practice to lose and gain clients on a frequent basis so we try our best to grow our client base slowly with quality Companies.

There are IR firms who will take clients purely to bring in short term revenues, these same IR firms also accept stock. My firm does not as a means of preventing conflicts of interest. My firm is also risk adverse and we usually bail on Companies at the site of any wrong doing on their part or otherwise. We also at times manage an intense screening process in the case of our Chinese clients.

Historically 9 out of 10 of my clients have had relationships with me lasting 3 years or longer or until they have been bought out or something else.

That said in terms of what I think about POET, I very much like the team and the technology. What you are buying into currently is the technology that Geoff Taylor has developed and management's ability as a fabless design firm to market that IP to a larger firm who can further validate the technology in such a way that it can be scalable and implemented. I am conservative in the AMD, Intel, ARM are all creating in paralell design answer's to the limitations of Moore's law. I will not be telling investor's that GAAS is the one and only next generation chip and that AMD, Intel, ARM and such will rollover because of GAAS. I believe that in an ecosystem where fiber optic cabling that was laid down in the 90's is finally going to have devices catch up with its implications in addition to further developments in Software as a Service/Cloud technology. I believe that GAAS can and could feasibly coexist very well with other next gen Chip's that are in development. The larger question and I don't have a personal answer is how much of the pie can POET's technology take from the larger chip Companies. It's anyone's guess. I work for a gentlemen names Raju Vegesna, he had a small chip design firm, making chips for IBM blade servers he had maybe 10 people in his Company. Broadcomm bought him out to the tune of $1.6bn in cash and stock. His Company has been a client of mine for 8 years now so with this in mind the sky could potentially be the limit for POET. But I will not shout this to the moon. As the Company is treading on a virtual moving platform right now where they are for the first time actively looking to monetize their assets. This is good news for investors, however it is not something that will happen on someone's personal timetable and in the exact sequence that they wish for things to happen.

Currently I'm not part of the business development team who is spearheading the monetization strategy of POET. The strategy of the business development team includes potential exclusive licensing options for a fixed number time as an early adopter. What this also means is that much of the information that had been leaked in one way or another in the past, is potentially detrimental to POET's cause when looking at things from an exclusivity perspective.

Its current valuation and what POET trades at right now is in no way indicative of the Company's intrinsic worth, which is entirely predicated on the success of the R&D projects in addition to future financial analysis by potential suitors. Being a non-revenue generating Company, valuation of the Company's assets will not be a multiple of EBITDA as it could be in a general M&A setting (as we have no E right now) but rather a calculation of...well to be honest. I don't know. I mean how do you valuate a disruptive technology that has no precedent currently in the market? Which opens up the potential valuation of the Company to the tune of billions as in the case of Raju's Company Serverworks bought by Broadcomm.

To delineate further, there is no set take-out bid on the table that has been announced which is easier to conceptualize, but what if in terms the deal involves an upfront payment for licensing rights to develop assets further, multiple parties licensed to utilize the R&D or any other permutation of the aforementioned? This would mean that investors now own a revenue generating Company, however the revenues and valuation of POET would be more muted in size and scope.

Without getting to the stage with a deal on the table, it's hard for a stock to be fairly valued with all this in mind, I will not add speculation and fuel to the fire/volatility. I do not trade the shares myself and I will not be used in this way. I hope this answers some general questions about myself and how I choose to act. I am a conduit for permeable information to and from management. Ultimately management runs the Company and are the decision makers, not you the investor or myself. You as an investor can choose to believe in the Company and management ultimately and stick around or not, however this is not my decision but yours alone.

I can at times, provide information that is important to that decision making process for information flow such as granularity as to what investors are looking for in interim updates. And I believe I have performed this well. I hope this helps.