How a 40% Loss Became a 137% Win

You own a position you're not sure about.

The chart is broken. The price is down 30% or 40% from where you bought it. If you told a friend or your spouse about it, they’re telling you to sell. The financial press has moved on.

Every time you check your account, the red number gets a little redder, and the question won't go away.

Should you hold? Should you sell?

Most retail investors answer this question incorrectly, and they answer it incorrectly in both directions.

The ones who hold through everything ride good positions into the ground because they never developed a reason to sell.

The ones who sell at every drawdown miss the recovery because the chart looked the same to them, whether the thesis was breaking or the market was mispricing it.

The bottom of a temporary drawdown and the start of a thesis breaking look identical from the outside. Without a way to tell them apart, "don't sell at the bottom" is a coin flip.

There's a better way to handle these moments, and last week we got to demonstrate it on the same trade twice in six months.

The Position That Looked Dead Last October

In July of last year, I told Premium subscribers to buy POET Technologies at $6.37.

POET designs the photonic chips that move data through AI servers using light instead of copper wires. The thesis was that AI capex was about to hit a copper bandwidth wall, and photonics was the only way around it.

By October, the position was down more than 40%. The chart was ugly. My inbox filled with subscribers asking why we were still holding.

We were still holding because the process said hold.

The process is four questions, which I’m going to reveal below. These questions don't predict the news, but they tell you what to do when news arrives or when the price moves without news. I run them on every position when the chart starts hurting.

Question one: What hard fact has changed since I entered, and is the price reflecting it or overshooting it?

Not sentiment. Not the chart. A fact. An earnings print, a customer addition or loss, a contract win, a regulatory change, a competitor's launch. Write the list on paper.

In October, POET had no negative facts on the list. The Marvell relationship was building. Hyperscaler design wins were progressing. The price was overshooting nothing because nothing had broken.

Question two: Is the structural force still throwing off leading indicators in the direction I bet on?

Always remember a very simple truth when it comes to the markets. The force is bigger than the stock. AI photonics had every leading indicator pointing the right way.

Hyperscaler capex commitments were accelerating. NVIDIA's forward orders were rising. Network-layer design wins were stacking up. The wave was getting bigger, not smaller.

Question three: What are the people who know more than me doing?

Insiders are the cheat code. Form 4 filings, 13D filings, share issuances, lock-up behavior.

In October, POET insiders weren't selling. There was no panic dilution. No covenant pressure. The people inside the company were behaving as if the thesis were intact.

Question four: If I had no position today, with everything I now know, would I open one at this price?

This is the question that does the most work. It collapses "should I sell or hold" into "would I buy or not buy," which is the same decision viewed from the symmetric side.

At the October low, the same thesis at a lower price was a more attractive entry than the original July buy.

Four for four said hold. The chart was lying about what was actually happening underneath.

We held.

The Same Position, Six Months Later

Friday, April 24, POET closed at $15.10. A 137 percent gain from our $6.37 entry.

The Moonshot Ride sell alert went out that weekend. Premium subscribers who executed at Monday's open recovered their original capital in full and were left with house-money shares that cost them nothing.

Then Monday morning at 8:58 AM, 32 minutes before the market opened, POET disclosed that Marvell had canceled all of Celestial AI's purchase orders.

The cited reason wasn't the technology or the market. The stated reason was that POET's CFO had been publicly discussing confidential customer information on a public forum, and Marvell fired POET for it.

Let’s take a look at those same four questions.

What hard fact had changed? The marquee customer relationship was canceled, and the cited reason was a management-level confidentiality failure. That is severe, and the price was reflecting it, not overshooting it.

Was the structural force still in motion? AI photonics, yes. POET's position on that force, no. Without the Marvell anchor, there was no visible commercial path forward at this market cap. There are rumors and promises of other customers, but nothing in writing yet.

What were people who knew more doing? Management's own response was the insider tell. Bare press release, no executive defense, no conference call, no quantification of the canceled orders.

They weren't signaling confidence in recovery.

Would I open a fresh position today at the current price knowing all of this? No.

Four for four said sell. We closed the remaining shares on Monday.

What This Actually Teaches

Discipline isn't refusing to sell. Discipline isn't reflexively cutting losses. Discipline is having a process that returns "hold" when the chart is screaming sell and "sell" when the chart is screaming buy.

Same questions. Different answers depending on the facts. Both produced winning outcomes on the same trade.

The cost of the process is real. We held through months underwater when most subscribers thought we were wrong. We sold a position we could have technically ridden on house money.

Both calls cost us optionality. Both calls preserved capital and produced a closed winner.

The framework didn't predict POET's cancellation. No framework can.

What the framework did was give us a clear sell call within a short amount of time of the news landing, on a position that was already sized to absorb a thesis-breaking event. That is what process buys you.

Not prophecy. Action you can defend in real time when new information arrives.

The photonics thesis is still alive. AI capex is still accelerating.

Other names on the same wave are still working. POET's chapter closed for us because the company broke, not because the wave broke.

Whatever position you own that's making you nervous right now, the answer isn't in the chart. The answer is in those four questions, run honestly against the underlying business.

If you don't have a process yet, start with this one. Write the four questions on a notepad. The next time a position you own is making you doubt yourself, run them. Let the answers decide.

The chart doesn't get a vote.

One last thing.

The Moonshot Minute Premium price goes up at midnight tomorrow, Thursday, April 30.

That's about 39 hours from when this email reaches your inbox.

Every current Premium Member is grandfathered in at their current rate for as long as they remain subscribed. Anyone who joins between now and Thursday at midnight is grandfathered in, too. After that, the new rate goes live, and there's no path back to today's rate.

If the framework above is the kind of thing you want running on the names in your portfolio every week, this is the last window at the current price.

Double D

🔓 Premium Content Begins Here 🔒