Those that pumped the theory we'd rebound back to $3-$5 after the financing closed have, once again, failed to appreciate how skeptical the market is of companies that overpromise and under deliver (or are perceived as doing so, ultimately the result is the same). 

Also, I'm sure Mazan is a wonderful person, but objectively, I don't know him, don't know his investing track record, have no credentials to verify etc.  I know (as I'm sure many others do) a few filthy wealthy folks who've lost staggering sums on spec. plays in the market without even batting an eye. That doesn't make them good stock pickers and it certainly doesn't improve the fundamental quality of the companies they invest in.  Granted, it may have played a part in keeping the company afloat which we should all be grateful for - but think to yourself, is that really a signal of company strength that one outside guy has that much impact? Because that can work both ways just as easy. So when someone counters our very legitimate dissatisfaction with Poet's performance, or uses 'silver-lining' arguments, based on a non-institutional and unknown person's deployment of discretionary cash, sorry but that's just uncorrelated insinuations of FOMO - that's not due diligence to lean on, and it certainly doesn't strengthen Poet's business acumen as a publicly traded company that's supposed to deliver investors ROI.  And sorry but "whispers" aren't what we need either.