Agoracom: Small Cap Investment - POET Technologies Inc. - Re: Holding down the share price

Aiming to become the global leader in chip-scale photonic solutions by deploying Optical Interposer technology to enable the seamless integration of electronics and photonics for a broad range of vertical market applications

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

Quan Gork

Rank: Treasurer [?]

Points: 4232 [?]

Votes: 191 Score: 2.6 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: Holding down the share price - Clarification

in response to

Holding down the share price

Rainer

posted on Jun 08, 2015 01:18PM

Rainer, re: "If only someone could explain to me how this mysterious "holding down the share price" works, how "they" are doing it and who "they" are!"

I feel that I should explain the intent of my original post. I do not for a second mean that POET has anyone, or has hired anyone to manipulate the SP on a daily basis to hold the SP down (i.e. not a conspiracy theory). The SP has clearly been manipulated, but I think this is strictly traders making a buck, and not on behalf of POET.

What I meant about holding the SP down, if at all by POET, is related to the timing and order of news. POET has a lot of flexibility on when to release news, no need to get into the "material news", must be released now concept. They have ways of holding off on news if they chose. So, a couple of scenarios could play out:

1) Release news about milestones (great metrics), deals, etc. and significantly raise the SP, followed by a financing.

2) Do a financing, then release news about milestones (great metrics), deals, etc. and significantly raise the SP.

All I am saying is that I get suspicious when the trading is in such a tight range for an extended period, and IMO, 2) above is a lot more likely to play out than 1) above. Just speculation, a very good chance this is wrong, but perhaps we can agree that there is > 0% chance that this could happen.