Like everyone else on this message board I am invested in other companies besides POET.  In perusing the message board of one of those companies I came across what appears to me, at least, an interesting comment.  The comment was about a company currently trading at about 35 cents USD and one that I have been following for several years, one that purports to have industry leading technology in at least 3 different fields, all of which are totally unrelated to the world of computer chips and computer related technology.  This company has been through multiple ups and downs over the years and finally looks like it might, emphasis on the word "might", actually convert promises and projections of capturing a large share of the market for its products "sometime" in the future.  Maybe within the next 3 to 5 years it will be a 10 or even 20 bagger... maybe.

At any rate, as I was reading the post on the other company I couldn't help but wonder if the comments about that company's struggles couldn't equally apply to POET.  Maybe you will also find the analysis below applicable to POET.. maybe not.  

***************************************************************************

"I want to comment on tech stocks in general and the pattern they provide fairly routinely to the retail investor.

I have an acquaintance who is worth about $120M presently in cash, real estate, company ownership and market instruments. He started with about $500,000 from a trust fund and, with the advice of a financial friend in 1998, turned to the market for investment platforms. He made about $80M within ten years. How did he do it? As he says "On the short side of technical startups". He knew the pattern and played it over and over:

I asked what the pattern is and he said "New company comes out with new tech idea, they push it to privates and the public and the corporate team boasts its virtues and the average retail investor buys-in hoping to make quick money. The price starts high and dwindles as the company marches a very well-documented path of Definition, Proof-of-Concept, Build, Test, Scale-up then Manufacturing/Marketing. That process takes three-to-five years most of the time, and the price of the stock typically dwindles to 10% of the initial excitement level. I short during this time."

Period. He added that he has reinvested in many of the companies, but at the right time of maturity of product. He says that it is a CEO's job to have promoted the concepts and success and hopes of the company during the whole process. They are not liars or criminals."

********************************************************************************************************************************

The author, of course, was leading up to his conclusion that in the case of the company he wrote about now was the time to reinvest.  His analysis seemed to all boil down to an argument for timing of when to get in on the life cycle of a company purporting to have a "paradigm shift technology" that would/could capture the market place and elevate the product to a preiminent position in that particular market niche.  It all sounds so familiar to me as I have, like many of you, been following and invested in POET for low so many years now.

Just to repeat the life cycle observed in the other company:  " The price starts high and dwindles as the company marches a very well-documented path of Definition, Proof-of-Concept, Build, Test, Scale-up then Manufacturing/Marketing"  Pretty much describes POET, doesn't it?  So where are we on that "well-documented path"?