As has been amply discussed here, the stock performance is, fair or not, taking a number of things into consideration:

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 legacy promises that have been superceded by new initiatives that don't reward the short term motive

2. capital raises that might not be explained in full without admitting something non-disclosable

3. the general silence that in all likelihood is a mortal necessity given their stated plans and ambitions

In other words, there's no way to know what we are not allowed to know before we are permitted or mandated to know it, and that is something the market hates. If POET were a private company, you would be in the same boat, but you would not have a public market able to influence the value of your private shares. And given the same stream of news we have had, you might be much happier, even though your shares would be far less liquid.

Private companies have the same sorts of challenges that POET has had to deal with. Probably it would be better if POET was not YET a public company but on the verge of going public. There would still be ways in that situation for the banksters to obtain their pound of flesh, but with the hoopla and promotion that would follow from a big-name underwriter taking it public, the same exact business situation would be valued more highly. 

So what does that tell you about the company itself? nothing. It tells you more about how the markets can take more advantage or less advantage of a company that needs funding, especially when the company is not a first-mover in its industry, but a disrupter.