The thing that jumps out for me regarding Arcam's top two top executives leaving is this...
GE is going to put in place their own people. GE took over the board and now they are going to take over CE/CFO. The risk here is that GE will feel even less of a need to provide transparency as to whether the interests of Arcam shareholders are being represented vs. the interests of GE management/shareholders.
With Magnus was in place, GE may have felt more of need to give weight to the interests of Arcam shareholders. Now that the CEO/CFO are leaving.....
I would be curious to know how Paul Singer at Eliot Hedge feels about this development. Singer has publicly stated his position on Arcam on a couple of issues in the past. Maybe he will comment on this development.
Still struck by the volume of business that SLM has achieved recently in terms of 3D printers sold/under contract compared to Arcam. Despite all the information out there describing the advantages of EBM over laser, clearly there has to be hurdles with EBM adoption (for large scale industrial production) that are still escaping me.
Yes, EBM has advantages over laser in aerospace/medical. But what is hindering EBM adoption in all the other potential applications of metal 3D? Magnus clearly saw this as an issue, because he always focussed on these two areas .. to the exclusion of other potential applications of EBM.
I wonder what Arcam would look like if they were a printer-only company and did not have powder as a revenue source. I think Arcam would have had to make some pretty tough decisions regarding finances, capital allocation, share dilution etc.
And, even with the powder as a steady and growing source of profitable revenue .. they still needed to dilute shares via thee recent offering.
My Arcam investment is making tired.
