Just viewed the presentation. I would offer the following observations. My background lies in the advertising/marketing business and I too have spent a good portion of my career conducting presentations to many types of professional audiences of all sizes and levels of sophistication.

My overall impression was twofold.

• • Firstly, as an existing long and deep investor I was actually more interested in content, and as such was buoyed in much of what I heard. My convictions in Poet continue to strengthen as it continues to derisk..
  • Secondly, as to the prospective investment community I'm not sure that the message is yet as strong as it needs to be, particularly before approaching the big dogs in NY. In fact, I would hope that they really work on polishing the effort. And for the record 'polished' does not mean 'a slick California talking head with flashing lights' or the like. It means entirely understanding who you are presenting to and seamlessly orienting the information in an accurate, consistent, clear and (often) concise manner.
  • Related, nor do I for a second believe that they intentionally did not want to provide a polished presentation as suggested on this board. It is both possible to provide a more casual, informal presentation, however not at the expense of polish.
  • Related, I also believe it is dangerous to rely on the belief that 'the product will sell itself' - while it may well eventually, it is still too complex (and unbelievable) not to back up the groundbreaking 'Changing the World' topline claim. You will chance leaving allot on the table along the way, and given Poet's need to strike in a quick, concentrated manner, yet with prolonged momentum (read Nasdaq uplist) you want to minimize not being entirely clear along the way. Perception is reality, and in many cases you only have one opportunity to leave a first impression. Think about the competition in terms of capturing share-of-mind with the plethora of tech plays that hit the market seeking institutional support every day. It's critical.

So in terms of form I agree with many of the points offered by both Mack and a few others.

Specifically, I would offer the following opinion:

1. It appears clear to me that the opening remarks were handled by Mike White (who likely was the conduit to setting up the meeting), and were not covered in the video. Mike is very accomplished and likely provided his Poet elevator pitch as an introduction, hopefully with slide accompaniment (?). My takeaway on Mike is that he would have been right on-point for his audience. I would hope that he would have introduced the Poet team in some detail, however given that Stephan seemed to cover it during his part I'm not sure he did. That takes me to my next point ...
2. While the tech proposition and it's deliverables are potentially truly groundbreaking for Poet, the greatest opportunity to establish immediate credibility for that proposition is Ajit Manocha. And done with considerable length up-front. His stature within the semi industry, along with his conviction for Poet should be offered right out of the gate - it establishes immediate credibility and provides the context for everything else that is about to be said ... imo that should be done in every meeting. And he should always contribute to the presentation, much in the manner that he did here ... the sage.
3. As it relates, I would suggest that AM always take the position at the head of the table, not Peter Copetti. It's the optics. At this critical stage he should be the figure-head and be seen as top-dog for Poet - the one guiding the ship (just think about his credentials, accomplishments and the reverence for which he is held on this board). Don't misunderstand me, I think that Peter has done a terrific job on resetting the direction of the company and bringing in the next rung of talent. Which takes me to the next point ...
4. Having Peter as the 'capital markets guy' with a pretty strong understanding and conviction in the tech, is a terrific complementary piece. And given that he has very good presentation skills he might have a stronger role in the actual presentation ... as example handle the monetization, partnership/JV, Nasdaq uplist etc strategies, following the technical presentation offered by ...
5. Stephan Gagnon ... from what I can tell, infinitely versed in the tech and operations of the company. Presentation is not clearly his strong suit, and assuming the position of the tech-meister (in lieu of The Good Dr) there is a certain degree of forgiveness normally afforded by the audience for this role. He did his best and likely also evoked some empathy, however his 'bit' was far too long. Part of the problem is that he appeared to be guided by the slides from what appeared to be the CP. And while I believe that the CP is a nice leave-behind, I would strongly urge the company pay heed to the comments offered by Mack ... http://agoracom.com/ir/POETTechnologies/forums/discussion/topics/635173-the-presentation/messages/1992811#message
6. Some might regard this as a little picky but I would offer a couple of examples on content where there were some missteps:

• • When Mike White was drawing the parallel to ARM, citing 81 PE multiples, he referenced Poet 'revenue' of $25M where he clearly meant earnings. Not much more than a slip-up and one that the audience likely gave him the benefit of the doubt ... but still, not the place where you want to mess up with the institutional sharks of NY...
  • Conversely, when Peter was fielding the 'whose lunch will Poet be eating?' he was fumbling, where Mike came in and bailed him out with the 'elegant strategy of Poet as the enabler that will allow the users of Poet to eat their competitor's lunch' . Clearly a point of strategy – and a huge one moving forward as it sets part of the platform for their communications strategy (a damn good one, I might add). But the point is, it appears that everyone was not singing from the same hymnbook ... it's a reflection on leadership and as such is important ... after all it always lies in the details - just ask Dr. Taylor.

In summary, the power of presentation is defined by it's take-away. As said, they did fairly well, but with lots of room for necessary improvement moving forward imo. In terms of form, one might consider the following edict - 'Tell them what you're going to tell them (White). Tell them (Gagnon/Copetti). Then tell them what you just told them (Copetti).' This ensures the greatest opportunity for success - however should be unrecognized by the audience. Therein lies part of the craft of 'polish'.