Yes. I remember that post. A good example of what I meant.
By the way, Kath's messages are always nice to read.

If anyone is interested you'll find that post here.

The last two and half years reading here for me went from informative via less informative but entertaining to this exaggerated discussion. Normally I enjoy reading here more than writing but being annoyed by last week’s massacre I thought writing might be a good therapy.

Maybe it’s time to ask some basic questions followed by some (hopefully) appropriate answers:

(1) My number one, really: Who were those lunatics that bought some 13,000,000 PTK shares last week?
One tends to forget it but it’s certain though, shares aren’t just sold. There is no selling without someone willing to buy. Or to put it this way: the number of those who consider our Poet shares a lousy investment corresponds exactly with the number of those presuming the exact opposite.

(1a) The subsequent question, whose decision was a more deliberate one, is more or less rhetorical. At least we can assume it wasn’t fear-driven - maybe except for those who were held at gunpoint by their wives/husbands.

(2) Why on earth do so many on this forum make the share price such an issue? And that’s a pretty interesting question. Equally interesting as to why people don’t get the difference between share price and shareholder value - despite e.g. Rainer’s countless efforts to help with that. By the way, there are some who perfectly understood. Maybe we should ask those buyers from last week for a deeper insight.

(2a) This question is to some extent the answer for number (2): Why is, that some fear (ok, speculation on my part) a significantly higher share price and a possible up-listing to an established exchange?
I think the answer is twofold and depends on who is manipulating: individuals longing for (your) ever cheaper shares depend on OTC prices because of their limited funds. Go and try to move the pendulum and sell Microsoft or Appel shares for $100,000 – and then sell the same amount of Poet on the Venture.
In concert with a few friends, some corresponding postings on SH/Agora and you have the perfect bloodbath.

And what if you planned a takeover? You'd need a lot of shares from us tenacious retailers who, following Rob’s analysis, own about 30% of Poet. 13 Million traded shares may sound huge but that’s just about 6% of the cake and probably there have been enough retailers buying too last week.
Prices must be kept low if you want to scare and squeeze the sh** out of people. Because, once up-listed it hardly takes more than two brain cells to grasp what opportunity Poet might offer - and you’d bleed for just fractions of 1% of the shares.

Well, what if you were a big player wanting this little diamond desperately before it’s too late? Could be you hire a few conscienceless people, equip them with some play money and let them flood the forums with doubts? Let them pretend doing DD and talk about subjects which only work in the context of the Venture, the early R&D state of the company and a lot of unexperienced forum readers.

There are these apparently immortal ghosts of ruinous dilutions, reverse splits, delayed milestones, the upcoming financing …
All this only works in the penny or low dollar ranges. True, it's a fact. Our shares plunged 58% or so in a month. Devastating, disastrous, right?
But in absolute figures that’s only 47 Cents (0.81 -0.34). That's OTC-Every-Day.
Using percentages instead of absolute figures is very common practice to increase a message's relevance: Let’s say we've got a normal incidence of 3 in 1000 habitants for some disease and last year’s statistics show 3 more incidents. You read that and tell your partner, hey we had 6 ill people last year but only 3 the year before. Probably he or she wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow. But tell him or her that the mortality-incidence of a potentially killing virus climbed by an unbelievable rate of 100%. You can bet the next trip will be straight to the pharmacy.

The same with dilution. Assuming a current share price of $1,00. An increase in share count by 20% could dilute the share value to $0,80. You’re the lucky owner of 100,000 shares but lose $20,000 that day. Remember, that’s a current snapshot. If the price goes up the next month to maybe $1,20 for no matter what reason (I could imagine a few) you’re $20,000 in the black. Whatever, if dilution happens in the penny ranges you will hardly remember when prices move to $5, $10 or higher. Ok, you don’t believe this thing ever recovers and goes up to 5 or 10 bucks? Start to think yourself and don’t get caught in the manipulator’s traps.

Trying to cut this long story but there is one thing that absolutely bothers me: What would you consider an appropriate behavior if you want to obtain or achieve something very badly? Did you slap your wives to convince them to marry you? Didn’t you show your kindest side? Probably. And did you wear your oldest rotten clothes on your last job interview and insulted the HR guy? Probably not.
So can someone please enlighten me and explain why this happens here every day?
If you don’t want the share price to tank why on earth do you blame management for incompetency, to pick just the most impertinent accusation.
Do you seriously call an experienced guy and former CEO of Global Foundries incompetent? Why do you think is Ajid Manocha sitting on an advisory board of President Obama?
To be honest, I don’t know for sure if any of our management’s decisions bear the fruits we all hope. And that’s because neither you nor I know any detail. But I know whom to trust more and that’s certainly none of those who either overestimate their own capabilities (to phrase it kindly) or very likely have their own agendas.

Good luck all
Axel

Honestly, I give a S*** on their communication skills regarding the public or how they struggle with ever dissatisfied shareholders. As long as Mr. Google or Ms Facebook are happy with their technical expertise.
They can release whatever they want, you can bet it gets slammed. How boring ...

What if Apple or/and Facebook or/and Microsoft said "Ok, build them, we'll buy them"?

A.

They left top-ranking positions in their industries. Do you think they'll sell this baby for pocket money? No way ...

A.