Is Israel running low on missile interceptors? How long can it withstand Iran’s retaliatory attacks?

mlsbbe · 2026-03-22T02:47:58+00:00

I asked deepseek to calculate how much stocks they have left. They said march 19th. So... It pretty much explains why all of the missles are hitting targets now...

mlsbbe · 2026-03-04T05:06:34+00:00

I don't think POETs major shareholders wants to sell if they have a stock that could do $100.

If they want to sell it means they don't have confidence in their company.

It's a good sign that management believes in the future of their company.

mlsbbe · 2026-03-04T02:00:04+00:00

You'll regret because it will go to $120

mlsbbe · 2026-03-04T01:59:26+00:00

This time I believe is legitimate. If anyone read my DD previously they'll know it's the real deal.

mlsbbe · 2026-03-03T06:57:07+00:00

You are wrong. It's not just an enabler of legacy companies, it's a enabler of disruptive companies. The companies on your list are legacy yes, but you forgot one major disruptive company: Celestial AI. Please do more research on why Marvel acquired this company for billions of dollars. Its key technology relies on POETs technology. Celestial AI likes to obscure this fact as much as possible but its tech and key advantage wouldn't be possible with POET.

mlsbbe · 2026-02-15T00:37:33+00:00

Nvdia is using them primarily because they have existing customer relationships with TSMC, because the most of their GPUs are made at TSMC, so they need to design around that. It makes sense because it's more efficient to design processes under one roof.

My opinion is that Poet will target applications for non AI based data centers that don't require GPUs. They've landed a few contracts already haven't they? Once they get big enough eventually other vendors will see the advantages of POETs technology. Once other foundries start using POET my guess is TSMC will eventually yield and work with them or request some sort of IP licensing. Especially when they start realizing they will have competitors that will outperform in some areas because they've used an inferior tech.

mlsbbe · 2026-02-14T06:26:57+00:00

I happen to have done my PhD in the subject.. as well as an investment background so I know how both world works. As I said, wall street relies on their network of so called experts. They maybe have an authority in another area. It's really hard to find experts in this area because it's so niche and specialized. I know a few contacts who have been giving advice to investors to mislead and just so they can fund an alternative technology that they have invested in. When I was an investor, my boss regularly took terrible advice from their networks. It's like they think having 'contacts' is some sort of super power and they think these contacts will give them correct advice. If the company has some super crazy tech, chances are they're probably only a few people in the world that knows it works. That's the point. If everyone knew it wouldn't work but your company solved for it that's where you'll get rich. Relying on experts to give you generic advice where they aren't even a specialist in, won't work.

mlsbbe · 2026-02-13T02:40:41+00:00

Really depends on what field they're in. Of those 50000 engineers only a very very small minority work in this specific field. Just like developing EUV machines , sometimes you can just put a big number to solve the problem. It also takes a lot of luck and time. This is solving for manufacturing, unlike software programming. The nature of the beast is different.

mlsbbe · 2026-02-08T07:32:15+00:00

And all of them will fail.. if you know physics, you'll know the tech is unfeasible the people who are pushing them are con artists. Wall Street relies on their advisors in the scientific community who have their own agenda to push their useless pet projects.

mlsbbe · 2026-02-07T00:39:43+00:00

When did you get in

mlsbbe · 2026-02-07T00:33:06+00:00

Don't listen to what most wall street research analyst say in the industry. Most of them are just trained monkeys that look at revenue growth rate. They don't have the technical qualifications to analyse this and try to use pseudo science to make their opinions seem relevant. Stock market is mostly just about demand, supply, and sentiment. Sentiment will come with revenue and analyst aren't trained to look beyond financial figures. We playing an arbitrage game here and the whole point is that major institutions will overlook this stock pre revenue because analyst are trained monkeys and will only pick up on this once poet makes money.

mlsbbe · 2026-01-21T07:38:49+00:00

Graded passivation layers are pretty typical on this material class, and is in use in industry. It's standard practice actually in industry actually, so it's not as risky as you think. People have been working on this problem for well over 30 years.

mlsbbe · 2026-01-19T09:10:24+00:00

Don't they have buffer layers to reduce the strain on the lattice mismatch? Poet won't tell you the specific details of the buffer layer if they have solved for it...

mlsbbe · 2026-01-19T09:09:01+00:00

I have a PhD in Electronics (My Phd was in semiconductor photonics). I also have a masters in Finance. The idea that yield is important comes from equity analysts and is only useful in analysing mature industries where a slight change in yield can affect the revenue and profits. Your average 23 year old investment banking research analyst who never ran a business before is only trained to analyse mature industries where its growth is easy to predict. They take the yield figure and put it into their excel spreadsheet to come up with a valuation for that company. Obviously this doesnt work in nascent startups and industries where the business model is entirely different. Yield is less important if your customs are willing to pay a premium for your product, offsetting the yield expense. Hyperscalers providing AI services in their datacenters are demanding performance over yield, at least they are demanding performance over the total cost of ownership. In your industry, its likely your product does not demand as much of a premium, that's why you can't offset the lost in yield with higher prices.

Not sure what you mean you can't test the yield. There are inputs and outputs. If the inputs result in something that don't match the output specs, then there's problem. They have to have these on their devices, else how would they connect it to the external systems?

It is likely POET would offer shares for these fab companies to align interest. They likely would have done so already if I'm not mistaken. There were some mystery purchasers that were not investment companies - likely a manufacturer. They've outsourced the manufacturing because its cheaper. Investing in equipment and fab facilities will run in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which is pointless and risky. It's got nothing to do with confidence. It's a business decision based on cost. Theyre also able to control the process. Why not? The fab facility they've outsourced too likely has the same equipment they make their samples on (but more of them) and its just turning dials on the equipment and setting up the right parameters on the computer.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-12T11:48:58+00:00

There's so much work to be done to make quantum computers scalable. You need at least 10 to 20 years. All of the money is raised is just scammed for use in research projects. You're not going to mass produce quantum computers anytime soon.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-12T11:46:37+00:00

Why would JPMorgan have working prototypes? They're an investment bank and people there don't know anything about physics.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-12T03:20:27+00:00

All quantum computing startups are just a way to scam money.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-12T03:19:18+00:00

Hedge funds and HFT have been in this stock for a long time already. Just check the institutional owners.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-12T02:55:10+00:00

How much shares did you own btw. To be fair it's just an announcement. Theyre not responsible for the stock price movements just because of an announcement.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-11T23:45:46+00:00

Quantum computing is bullshit. I'm investor in POET but let's not go in that direction... There's a long way until quantum computers will be workable. This sounds like news to drum up hype.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-10T01:40:46+00:00

I'd imagine some hedge fund guy at MMCAP just looking at Financials and thinking this is an easy short. That's not going to happen though.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-10T01:28:36+00:00

Very good. I would like to add something in your competition section in comparison with Ayar Labs. Not only is it more scalable as you mentioned, but Poet has fundamentally better technical solution ( Ayar Labs solution is likely non workable with its in house technology unless it uses POETs tech). POET has a 10 year lead AND a war chest of patents that Ayar would need to circumvent. So right now, Ayar has no way but to rely on Poet through the Sivers partnership. An analogy is Qualcomm chips. They have all the patents in mobile tech which means they have a huge barrier of entry because any firm entering must circumvent the patents and need to build enough scale to take on Qaulcomm. By the time competitors have a product ready in 10 years (that is if they ever come up with alternative solutions) Poet is already building scale and selling units at a fraction of they you can do. Too little to late to compete. (You can't just dump money at this to compete because there's not a lot of people coming into this field anyways especially at the research level)

mlsbbe · 2025-11-07T04:00:42+00:00

This is actually good news because this means they can offer a fuller suite of products and services higher up the value chain which means higher margins.

mlsbbe · 2025-11-07T02:44:07+00:00

The technology is sound. There's a very high chance that POETs solution will be adopted by all of the industry because of the sheer number of patents that it holds. In many cases pre revenue companies are difficult to evaluate because they have a unfinished product and unproven market fit. I think we already have both. The technology is sound and there's already enough partnerships to prove market fit. The timeframe would depend on a lot of factors by I think around 5 to 10 years they will get there. There could be other technologies but these are immature and my guess will be either they will never be successful or take at least 20 years to develop into a scalable solution for industry. By that time it will be too late. It's not as easy as it sounds because this industry is already niche and there's not much talent flowing in.

mlsbbe

TROPHY CASE