Moska:

'legacy promises that have been superceded by new initiatives that don't reward the short term motive'

Thank you for your excellent summary Moska.  

Your quote above sumarises accurately a moment in 2015 when SV, our new CEO, announced that he would pivot the companies stratagy from selling IP to commercialisation of POET by making active optical cables for the data centre market. This was a 'gulp' moment for me, as I expect it was for others. as my short term expectations of rapid rewards from PTK were effectively blown out of the water by the realisation that the new strategy would take time and money.  

As regards time my expectation was that commercialisation would take eighteen months, my more astute brother DNWL thought it would take longer, more like three years,  DNWL seems to be right and in line with managment plans which state late 2018 for profitability.  As regards money, the  second volley accros Sula's bows, was the inevitable risk of the need for more money to complete the project which resulted in the unfortunate but necessary, PO.  

What we have all learned from all this is that for many of us we probably invested too early, or, for some, did not take advantage of the gains to be made trading in the inevitable peaks and troughs of the journey or perhaps the pportunity of bailing out, as no doubt some have at the first hint of the PO given an awareness of its consequences. This is of course spilt milk not to be cried over. 

I remain long and a believer in the advantages of taking the long term view in investment and  confident in this amazing technology and its disruptive potential, which on current evidence with the full integration of all the AOC's components, as well as the ramp up of work at DenseLight Singapore places this in an advanced state compared to the high risk choice I made five years ago.

For me the nagging question is not POET but PET, as I simply cannot reconcile how the early work of PTI's technical development, which was a priority up to August 2015. was just abandoned during the strategy pivot, when so many pointers at that time were of work being directed by a large customer, including the completion of the production of PDK. One simply does not complete the costly production in PDK in my mind unless (1) the development of PET was complete and (2) there was a clear intent to support the onward development of PET products in the future by a customer.

I can understand Rainers distaste for speculation which stiffled the last bout of discussion on this matter but I don't agree that this is entirely speculation as there are so many facts that exist that fit a scenario that PET did not get abondoned but was taken forward by a forty engneer deal which may well prove to be PC's real legacy to PTI.  The speculation only revolves on who that customer might have been.  Surely, the complete failure of the PET negociations with that customer would otherwise have been a reportable matter to shareholders.

I therefore have doubts that superceeded was the correct word to use in your quote

 More on this in a later post.

Sula