Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Ah trader, do you now admit that your shouts over a year ago that composites would leapfrog ebm were false. Admit now that composites and ebm will share a place on the GE engines That those 30 leaps you commented on a year ago were not the final volume production model that you shouted. And you have shouted for a year that time is running out for arcam, that arcam would not get a ge bulk order and that technology would displace ebm. Admit now that that is not the case and that as I've said for a year there may well be a substantial place for both ebm and composites on all the GE engines. Kinda the same as the shout a year ago that the leap train had left the station while your now posting that ebm will be on the leap. LOL Bottom line, there will be a place for both and given the articles that have been reported here there are ongoing a lot more uses for ebm produced parts. The picture seems positive. From an investment standpoint, a brokerage recommendation trumps your bollanger bands. Charlie, seems that the investment community is reacting well to the brokerage buy recommendations and price targets.
I'll take the brokerage recommendation and price target over your Bollinger bands and technical analysis that lead you to shout that arcam was going to 10 and below and a lot of the other moves and predictions you feel so needy to post. Not that concerned re motorcycle sales or composite phobias. Like the general news re expanding EBM uses. But it is nice to see that arcam had a nice move with good volume, but in my opinion its just getting back to where it belongs based on its execution and outlook and the recent price weakness from 27 was a market mistake, colored by general market weakness and the EU turmoil.
I see your back to focusing on bulk sales. Yep, bulk sales are nice as are any sales But, im happy with just a good number of single sales that lead up to good sales numbers and signs of customer acceptance. For example, using q4 as an example. While you were predicting bad sales from arcam because of the lack of announced sales I remained hopeful and optimistic. And to be honest, while I liked all 29 sales of course, I liked the 19 unannounced sales even more than the 10 bulk GE sales. Didn't you??? If the pps gets to above 30, I have more than a one bagger on investment shares and a lot more on my remaining 11 to 15 hot shares. Go arcam.
I join you in hoping for a good ER coming up and will play it as usual. But, I'll be honest the lack of news is frustrating as I have no basis for my ER predictions now. I can't even guess on deliveries, assuming most in backlog will be delivered plus perhaps 1 or 2 from the current quarter because don't know how many of the GE bulk 10 the company wants delivered before 2017.
But will try again, 2 out of 3 good predictions now bad. Would be great if some of you other guys, who in part have done better than I have, will offer some guidance and opining as well, with of course reasoning and analysis.
Yes trader, a great idea In fact, if you will recall over on the arcam yahoo board, even before arcam bought di santo, that was part of my vision. For Di Santo to expand beyond implants and to offer contract 3d manufacturing and printing for any customers coming which would fulfill the one void in arcam's offerings, i.e. on demand contract manufacturing. Yes that would add a lot of additional printer demands. In fact, unless I have been spinning what Rene has said to suit my vision, Rene has agreed with me, hinting of Di Santo contract printing beyond just implants. Do others agree? Anyway, yep good idea but kinda old. Problem is setting up that new orientation but more does Di Santo have the capacity??? I am an advocate of any additional ebm use and demand so long as it does not hurt or hinder arcam's main markets
Your right Charlie. Other examples: When hearing of the GE bulk order, after saying it probably would not happen, suddenly we would have 1000s of sales. Also, just recently, expects the GE order to be fulfilled when GE has said part, most, all??? of the order won't be filled till 2017 and the expectation, desire goal to suddenly sell 10 printers A MONTH. Just some additional examples to support your position. Then without any real data all those negative conclusions. Those are my criticisms.
While I am bullish on arcam for the reasons I've outlined, as I've also stated I wish rene and arcam would provide at least guidance and outlook. We have no idea what the GE delivery schedule is, how sales are going, what other companies may be intending to use ebm parts, how the technology advances are progressing till after they are announced for market or any means to estimate printer sales other than the bulk sales. And as I've said, we don't need bulk sales, although I like them, if we can get 19 unannounced sales like we did in q4. But I do understand that Rene is limited by competitive and customer factors and willing to go along with it as my overall assessment of the story is positive. I buy/sell shares frequently and don't see the need to announce each other. In fact the only time I really comment thereon is to point out the pps moves around ER times and to negate some negative posturing. The bottom line is that a lot of articles and data sources you provide, and that I've found independently, establish that a lot of entities are testing ebm printed products, that will need a lot of printers and that is a good sign for the future
I agree with you Charlie. As I've said many times, I like the fact that Rene deliveries what he promises and that arcam seems to be executing nicely, the only 3der that is. It is also the only 3der that consistently shows sales growth and makes money.
Now that is not to say that I have rose colored glases nor am I a Pollyanna. I wish we had more sales, an infinite number, and that we would progress faster. But I also understand that the pace is not within arcam's control it is within the control of the customers. Mass engine production and other volume production is taking longer than we all hoped, but it is happening. I am also impressed and encouraged by the anecdotal evidence you and others have provided re all the experimentation and research that is going on to use other ebm parts besides just blades. It takes time, but it is happening. Moreover, while some get scared of any new technological process, even when it is not competitive with ebm, I realize it is not necessarily a zero sum game and that there will be room for both ebm and possible new technologies. All arcam needs is a good part of the market, not even the majority to prosper. But like with any new technology it takes time. We don't know how many ebm parts will be needed, the amount of different parts ebm might produce or how many machines and when will be needed to produce them. What we do know is that the anecdotal evidence suggests an increasing amount.
I agree with every comment you made. The printer expansion to get ready for the bulk orders and the material expansion to be sure that arcam is ready for the material needs of its and competitors needs is very encouraging THe other 3ders are late in meeting demand while arcam anticipates it. Per Rene, arcam is also getting people trained to handle all the newe printer volume needs. All of that is encouraging and the stock has done quite well for me. I've been in arcam for years, when it was 60ish pre split and to me arcam's outlook is even more positive than it was then and I expect the pps to reflect that at some point But even now, lets note that arcam just hit a 52 week high unlike the other 3ders. Yes lets talk about the arcam pros and cons, but it does not take rose colored glasses to realize that arcam is executing well and that Rene deliveries on what he says. I just wish he would say more and have a lot more transparency re where arcam is going, arcam's outlook and the timing thereof. We are within a few weeks of the next quarter closure and my next ER analysis, but I sure hope I do better, 2 of 3 is good, but not what I would like. The key this quarter will be deliveries which disappointed me last quarter as did sales. BUt after the great q4, I could understand lower sales but expected all of the non GE backlog to be delivered. Anyway, keep up the good work in offring your information and analysis of arcam.
Obviously the more sales the better, but your conclusion is not necessarily correct. We do not need at least a 10ner, or even close to it. I'll be glad to have all the bulk orders we can handle, but such is not needed to meet our goal. I'm be very happy to get 19 single orders like we did in q4. I'm be very happy with 19 sales Heck, i'm be happy with a lot less, just so long as it shows continual good growth. I'll take 19 single sales over one 10 printer sale, LOL.
But to be more realistic, I'll be happy with the above sales outlook, but i'm more concerned with the deliveries. While one or 2 q4 sales but get out given Rene's statement of less than a quarter turnaround, obviously the bulk of what will go out must be sold by the end of q3. We also don't know how many of the GE bulk order will be delivered per the company's option. NOw I know you posted that you expected that order to be filled in the next quarter or so, but the company announced that many, most, all of the printers will not be delivered until 2017 which caused you to back off your post of 1000s of sales.
I wish we had more guidance and color re that GE order delivery timing. But without that we will need to depend on the company's q2 and q3 sales, and their execution on deliveries to bank our revenue for the rest of this year. I, like you want a lot of sales, bulk or otherwise, but given RENE's close to the vest preferences, we will only know on the next two ERs, assuming no bulk orders which we all hope will happen in spades we shall see but hand wringing will not help it getting done.
Cleos, agree in part/disagree in part with your comments First no one disagrees with trader's right or the benefits of his offering comments or opinions on arcam and its positives and negatives. What I and others disagree with are the erroneous conclusions drawn based on weak premises. And to be direct, relating to the post that caused my response, #4058, does anyone disagree that the statement "It may be a long time before we see any appreciable numbers of EBM blades on the Leaps unfortunately..." was a conclusion? Based on his premise that the LEAP engines were lasting longer than anticipated before maintenance. The argument he raised that this was not a conclusion posted several times, is almost as bogus as arguing the definition of "is". LOL I gave forth my reasons that this was a conclusion as well as pointed out a number of other false conclusions which need not be repeated again and I incorporate by reference my posts delineating my reasoning.
Where I agree: We all would like arcam to be involved in more aviation and medical parts as well as other industries especially the oil/gas, automobile and industrial sectors which use a lot of metal parts. The more the better. But Rene has shown himself to be an able manager and perhaps he sees the best bang for his buck in these sectors. Remember rene has said that arcam will have trouble keeping up with the demands of the aviation sector alone. Maybe arcam simply does not have the capacity to handle other sectors, maybe the money is better or a variety of other factors may be in play. Again, the more the better in ebm uses but so far I see arcam progressing nicely. And Trader has noted 50% sales growth with SLM, well hasn't arcam overcall been expanding its sales 50% or more. He has shouted that he wants 10 printers per month in sales. Does anyone think that is realistic in the near future or that arcam could produce and deliver that many??? That is 120 per year. NOw that would be an increase in sales.
where I disagree: I've seen many politicians and others work a room of both parties. Generally, I may agree with one and disagree with the other but working a room, by itself is meaningless.
My problem is the shouting conclusions, not just ideas or opinions, over and over based on weak personal opinions and premises. I've documented many. Like how many posts did we endure about the poor sales expected based on no announcements when we got 19, not counting the GE 10 in Dec. just one example.
My only request is to bring up areas of concern and tripidation. But don't shout that we won't see many blade sales based on perceived maintenance schedule on the leap which is subject to many variables as I pointed out, don't shout that there will be poor sales simply based on lack of announcements, what competition he has read about, or new technologies read about. Don't multiply post it will be a long time before ebm sales are realized, that the leap train has left the station as he now talks about ebm blades on the leap, and that sales will be poor because of a lack of announcements. Bemoan the lack of sales announcements, but don't conclude they don't exist especially given past surprises. Isn't that what this board is all about??? talking about what we perceive are arcam's positives and negatives, not to simply set forth conclusions based on questionable premises. Speculate but do not conclude. And I agree with almost all that this is an excellent board and I am amazed often with the knowledge and expertise offered here. But speak in the context of opinions and speculaion and don't pretend to offer conclusions such as it will be a long before EBM will be on the Leap, especially after you have shouted that the leap engine has left the station. JMHO but given several recent posts I thought it was timely to set forth
Trader, what else would you call the process: You take the length of time a leap engine will fly (premise) and then shout that because of the length there will be less need for leap blades. Conclusion????. What else would you call it.
For some one who doesn't read my posts you sure comment on them and know what ive been saying. Plus how can you avoid them?? But you couldn't even get the initials right unless it was just a typo and i'm kind of the typos, LOL
Yep it takes room and time to show all the false conclusions, some new, some repetitive examples. I don't just say a engine flys x amount of time so they will need y amount of blades without considering all the variables. Or hint re conclusion based on what I see/don't see in a video. Just like 30 leaps does not equate to volume production. I explain my conclusins
TOM, don't expect Trader to document or back up anything he concludes as almost all of his conclusions are based on flawed or weak premises. Examples all easily documented by looking at the posting history here and on the arcam yahoo board:
1. He states that the LEAP train has left the station. This was based on his statement that the leap was already in production, q3 last year, based on the fact that he alleged 30 were produced. Also questioned that there would be no bulk GE purchases based on the time lag since Rene hinted at such a buy. Then when the bulk order came, postulated that there would be thousands of printer sales, then when Ge confirmed that some of the printers would not be delivered till 2017 he resumed questioning how many printers would be sold.
2. Likewise, below he posts that he expects the GE order to be fulfilled, implying in the next few quarters when we all know some, most all???? will not be delivered till 2017.
3 Posts composites will leapfrog EBM, concluding that arcam will be hurt, whereas the info we are receiving now, and as I postulated then, is many part and OEM manufacturers are testing and planning to use ebm parts and some are planed for planes now. Composites will not leapfrog or trump ebm, there is a place for both.
4. Concluded that arcam's sales would be poor q4 because of the lack of announced sales. Will 19 sales, before the GE announced order, was good IMHO.
5. Posted that arcam would get to 10 and below based on his analysis of the market and technical analysis. Then when called on it, defended himself by saying 11.25ish was a rounding error. To me 11.25 on a 10 dollar prediction is not a rounding error.
6. Reads an article on competitors, many examples, but lets use ebAM as an example, then posts that the product will/might be a major competitor to EBM when others point out the technology is not even competitive.
I could go on and on and on with documented examples but the point is made. All the above were conclusions to the negative of arcam except for the 1000s of printers post, none of which have held true or were based on solid premises. Like the no announcement, poor sales, or the leap train left the station when Rene says no decision made, and the damaging competition when the technology are not even competitive conclusions. Anyone question whether the post topics were not conclusions in essence and anyone not agree that they were based on flawed premises. Like the ones where something is seen/not seen in a video causes trader to reach an arcam conclusion.
Myself, I try to wait till there are solid facts or information before I conclude or clearly indicate, like my ER estimates, that they are my own personal conclusions. But even then , I explain why I reach the conclusion set forth and others can agree or disagree with my reasoning process.
I do not, like the post I commented on, guess how long a leap engine will last, when every user differs on how the leap is used and has different policies on replacement, and then attempt to conclude that that will reduce the amount of arcam blades that will be needed and when. This on a leap engine that Trader already posted that arcam would not be involved in as he posted that the leap train left the station. Case made, they are conclusions and they are flawed.
Hey trader, more shouts about your conclusions based on your solid premises. Lets check your documented record. Arcam was gong to 10 and below the Leap train had left the station and now you post that the leap is back in the picture, composites would leap frog EBM, arcam would get no GE bulk orders, than we would sell 1000s in a yeqr, then bleak again, EBAM and every competitor you read about would pose destructive competition to arcam, you conclude based on what you see or don't see in a video, you shout that arcam would have poor sales based on no announcements as we got 19 in q4, etc, etc, etc. LOL. You even presume to understand the pps movements shouting that you sold at 21 and now 27, of course after the stock has made a move and presume to understand and anticipate what companies will do regarding their manufacturing processes and needs. Heck you shouted that the leap was in full production, to support your leap train had left the station argument, based on the shouted fact that 30 engines had been produced. LOL. All in your yahoo and other posting records.
Now you presume to predict how long a leap engine will serve as if that is not based on individual usage and manufacture choices. LOL You also presume to draw conclusions based on that guess of yours re how and when arcam blades will be used. Never mind that real volume production has not started, that engine replaceents will depend on individual corporate decisions and individual usages and never mind that the leap is still under development such as there is consideration of even introducing a new version of the leap to enlarge the 737 plane, possibly using the airbus version of the leap.
Bottom line trader your making conclusions on weak premises and yor guessing is flawed at best and explains why you have been wrong so often. tired of seeing all these conclusionary shouts and opinions, and telling of all your actions and ideas, when they are based on flawed premises. Why not wait till you know something before you opine. Bottom line, you have no idea of how long a leap will be in play whether GE will modify the leap In process to accommodate EBM blades or how many or when ebm parts will be needed on the leap, other engines or the basic airframe as you have no idea what corporate decisions the part and airplane manufacturers are being made.
What I do know is that GE has opted for EBm blades per their own statements and printer procurement, other parts manufactures and mainframe manufacturers are investigating and opting for EBM parts and rene has stated that arcam would have trouble keeping up with aerospace demand. Those are facts and not conclusions based on false premises or guesses. What we do not know, but i'm positive about, is how many printers and how much material this will result in and when. But as I said when you first raised the above shouts, ebm will have a place in the equation and the jury is still out and conclusionary shouts are simply foolish and premature.
I'm in the middle. I bought a large position in arcam mid 2013 and have held and well held. Well over 5000 shares. I also have bought couple thousand shares each ER which I call hot sales to play the arcam trend of building pps going into the ER and then weakening. I've posed about these moves for over a year I also took great pleasure in showing up those posters who kept shouting arcam was going below 10 and bought a lot at 11/12 which I've just started selling at 25+. Still have some hot shares from the last 2 ERs as the pps weakened before I could lighten. And still have some of those 11/12 shares. As I've consistently stated IMHO arcam is under valued, has a great execution history and has a great share in the coming 3d manufacturing sector. I'm sure you've seen many of my posts showing the fallacy of those who shout that arcam was going below 10, that the leap engine had left the station and that composites would leapfrog ebm and also fear every new competitor shouting that they would kill ebm and those that shout about what they see or don't see in a video as if that has meaning. Bottom line, I do play hot shares and have made a lot of money doing it and have also kept my investment and some hot shares with significant paper profits. I have had a lot of faith in arcam, its done well for me so far as I've kept the faith and posted accordingly and we shall see who comes out ahead. And while shouting that arcam was going to 10 and below did not buy any shares at 11/12 or at least he did not inform us of it
I agree with you that an interchange of ideas and analysis is what these boards are for and can be quite interesting so long as there is an insightful analysis to support the conclusions reached.
You seem to have a need to take the amount of powder produced by APC and extrapolate it to a conclusion re how many arcam printers will be neeed. For the reasons I've posted, I find this exercise flawed and meaningless. One cannot take the amount of powder produced, guess on the amount of powder each arcam machine will use (which you have done in numerous posts and I've explained why I disagree) and then infer how many arcam printers will be needed. I've explained my reasoning and you have admitted there most if not all of your variables are merely guesses and as such suspect.
But I've given my analysis and you've given yours and it will be up to readers to determine if your guesses have any merit. To me, i'm not persuaded and I've explained why. Especially since you admit all your data points are guesses and not based in fact and that many variables also change with time.
We both have given our reasoning and analysis and readers can decide. But I agree with you, the process is interesting and useful as an exercise to try to determine how many arcam printers will be needed. BUt the real key, IMHO, will be how soon and to what extent EBM volume manufacturing proceeds and we must await that playing out. To me all these posts attempting to determine how much powder is used by ebm printers, how many will be needed to produce a certain number of parts, even the amount of parts to be produced are unknown facts and thus any conclusions based on such guesses is flawed. We don't really even know how effective and prevalent stacking is or how different companies differ in their efficiency of producton.
Mauser, I respect your opinion, and in part I agree with it, but I must disagree in part.
Obviously as volume production nears and the sector is becoming more comfortable with EBM and 3d printing, and with sales already made, many companies have started and completed their experimentation with EBM and EBM printers as have some universities.
BUT, and this is a big BUT, there are many more universities and companies to be heard from. As volume 3d manufacturing becomes more commonplace, interest in 3d printing will increase and as more parts are EBMed, interest will increase in EBM printers.
I've heard some posters opine that there have been roughly 100 of the rough 225 arcam printers bought for research and experimentation. I will accept that number for argument's sake. So that leaves a lot of universities and companies that have not already bought EBM printers and may like to test them out as the 3d printing sector matures.
As you pointed out the 3d printing sector needs more trained operators to operate the machines effectively and engineers to design 3d related parts.
Now where will these guys come from and be trained. At universities and in new classes in universities not offering the courses yet. This will require a lot more printers for each new university that offers a 3d printing course and some of these courses will focus on EBM. So I postulate that many more universities will be buying arcam printers to train students in EBM use to satisfy the need for volume manufacturing. So I disagree with your postulation that university market is saturated.
Simarily, as companies successfully show how effective EBM printing is in aerospace, medical and other sectors, many new companies will be interested in getting into the game. Since no company starts with just the desire to print and advances to production without testing and experimentation, I postulate that many additional companies will want to experiment with ebm printers to see if they can improve their traditional processes. So many more companies than currently are experimenting with ebm printers will want too do so which will continue to spark ebm printer sales for such experimentation. Just like RR, Alcoa, PW etc have done. So I postulate a lot more printer sales to different companies for experimentation may be forthcoming.
For the above reasons, I disagree with your thesis that printer sales to universities and companies for research and experimentation are saturated and matured. I wish the company announced its buyers so we would know how many of current sales are to universities and company experimentation, i.e. companies that buy printers that are not being used for specific part producton. We may never know as we don't know how many printers are now being sold for such purposes. But given the obvious expansion of 3d ebm manufacturing, I must conclude that more universities will buy ebm printers to train students in the process and more companies will want to jump on the bandwagon and will need printers to see how effective ebm printing is for their parts. Right?????
Investor I do not understand your logic on several fronts.
1. You try to equate material sales to estimate printer sales when IMHO you cannot do so because of the variables. You say 250 kg per printer and that equals a certain number of machines. BUt it doesn't. First the amount each machine will use will be determined by time of usage (24 hrs or 8 hrs) stacking or not stacking, efficiency of operations as some manufactures might have more efficient powder usage methods, whether the manufacture makes their own powder and how much is sold to laser printer and for other uses. So production and sales of a certain amount of powder doe not necessarily equate to a certain number of EBM machines sold. RIght??? The variables are a lot more than simply what part is being produced and its material and geometry.
2. You state that per an arcam slide it has 100 systems in production. Did I read that correctly??? Given that arcam had only 19 printers in backlog, and some were for the ge bulk order which are not intended for immediate delivery, are you saying that arcam is producing 80 printers on spec (20 in backlog vs your statement that 100 are in production)?????? First, they don't have capacity for 100 printrs and don't have the sales either. So did I misunderstand your shout or am I missing
something.
I totally agree that the more powder sold the better. But catalysts are not just EBM printers, it includes laser metal printers and non printers as well. Moreover, Rene said on the last cc that APC sells 50% for EBM printers so not sure where the figure 40 EBM 40 Laser and 20% other uses comes from. Not what Rene stated on the last CC per my notes
If you listen to Trader, he keeps shouting for 10 per month but then keeps posting that competitors will kill arcam and the lack of announcements means few printers are being sold. Of course he also posted that 1000s would be sold right after the GE announcement then of course retracted that shout.
Bottom line, I agree with your hopes but your method of getting there is flawed. You cannot tell how much material a printer will use because some may not even use APC powder (other sources or make it themselves) and a lot of APC sales may go to non EBM uses. So simply because powder is produced and sold may have no colleration with EBM printers sold. Also as stated above, there may be wide variations in powder used per printer.
So while I am very bullish on the number of printers Arcam will sell, the mere fact that APC is increasing capacity does not tell us how many printers will be sold. But the lack of PR announcements does not mean low sales either. Look at the 4th quarter when Trader was bemoaning the lack of sales announcements and we had the GE bulk order and 19 unannounced sales.
Myself, I predict a good number, and increasing EBM sales as volume production begins but not necessary the 10 per month or 120 per year that Trader keeps harping on. After all, last year, which was relatively good, had sales a lot less than the 80 predicted.
Investor, couple of points. 1. You are right that some experimental and research printers will use less powder so that is a variable. 2. Some customers may operate their printrs full time, some partial and some may be more efficient in usage than others which will offset the amount of powder used. 3. Some may buy powder from competitors or make their own like Avio which will reduce the amount needed from APC for each machine. 4. Some may use stacking more than others which will affect powder usage. 5. Not sure you are right that the other category will be reduced. APC sales will be to those willing to pay the most and if the others have demand and are willing to pay more they will keep their share. Ditto with competitors or EBM printers. There are other factors.
Bottom line, there is no mold that fits all. I do not think you can make any universal conclusion re how much powder each machine will use, if any at all, given the variables above and others. Same with printer needs. There is no set number of printers vs parts for every manufacturer as all will have variables such as hours of use, efficiency of use, buying from non APC sources and making their own powder and size of part or stacking usage.
The only thing we can be sure of is if a manufacture decides to use EBM for volume part production they will need a lot more machines than before such production usage.
Tamhas, My point exactly. Not only do you have the experimental machines which are not full production but you also have the machines using their own sources such as Avio which is a major buyer of machines. So obviously you cannot make any conclusion of powder vs machines in use. My basic point of course is unless Rene gives us some guidance all these guys trying to figure out how much powder, machines etc will be needed to produce a given number of parts is specious. We don't know the powder usage as there are many variables. We also don't know how many machines will be needed to produce a given number of parts as some machines will operate 24 hours, some not so, some might use stacking, we don't know exactly the production of each machine and some parts may require more time than others. The amount of powder sold and the number of machines sold will be determined in the quiet by the various customers assessing their needs and number of parts they can sell vs how fast the machines can produce them using their technology and operation procedures. Will differ with each company and their operating efficiency with the individual company.
So I suggest we concentrate on number of customers buying the printers and number of parts being producd by EBM and stop speclating widely on APC powder needed for each machine and how many machines will be needed to produce those parts. Just look at some of the flawed estimtes. Also stop seeing killing competition in each new article indicating how customers may use 3d printing, from seeing or not seeing something in a video or shouting how many machines will be needed and how many they would like to be seen sold such as 30 per month.
Nobahamas, flaw in your reasoning. Every buyer of an EBM system does not use APC powder. Correct me if I'm wrong but Avio has machines producing its own powder. Others do also if I recall correctly. So every sold arcam printer will not use up that 750 powder capacity. Same with SLM printers. How many current and new printers will be using APC powder vs their own or other users.
To answer your question, you would have to determine how many current printers are using APC powder, how much in total is that of the 750 capacity and extrapolate an average assumption that the same percentage of new printers, both EBM and others, will also use APC powder and then determine based on the current sales numbers, both ebm and others, how soon will that ratio equal a consumption number equaling the 750 capacity. And try to figure those numbers without any info from RENE who simply has stated based on the last cc that the current ratio between ebm and laser is about 50%.
Myself i'm willing to conclude that the number of printers using apc is increasing and that Rene knows what he is doing in determining the capacity increases. Same with printer sales. I assume Rene knew what he was doing when he increased printer capacity and that sales will evolve to justify that capacity.
Nobahamas, lets do the math. On avg how much material does a avg metal printer use over a year. Rene has said that APC sells half for EBM and half to competitors. There are what 250ish arcam printers in use now. How much do they annually consume??? Figure out the current material per printer, the number of printers and APC's current sales. How close is it to the 750 tones that APC will have in 2017. Then figure out the growth rate for both arcam and other buyers. How soon will that number get close to or exceed 750 tons. That will determine how soon the new capacity figure will be needed and whether even more will be needed. Rene does not provide those numbers. So if any of you have those numbers, your questions can be answered.
Your theory is flawed but good. You are assuming that all the APC capacity increase will be EBM related and thus foretells a huge number of new Arcam machines. I also hope for a lot of new arcam sales as you well know. But circa 50% of APC sales go to competitors so the increased APC capacity may be foretelling a lot of competitor mental printers as well as arcam printers. Or it may be suggesting increases in both which is also good but does not relate to your 900 figure. Anyway, good news I agree as it shows a vast uptick in titanium metal 3d printing needs
You may be better informed than me. Besides arcam and EOS, are there other 3d OEMs which are big in producing titanium or incone 3d printed parts. Don't think ddd is big in that area as they do have metal 3d printers through their Phoenix buy. Are there any others as sttys doesn't and don't think vject or xone are big in that area either if they even produce metal machines. Seems like nice potential for arcam and eos although of course eos is pvt.
So true, so much hype, so little delivered as I suggested a year ago We finally got some details, but the first printer won't be ready till the end of this year and the second next year still. So nothing is here yet. But the announcement was me with a yawn. At least this morning, hp was a draw and the competitors, ddd and stys up significantly suggesting the street did not think much of the HP entries. So much for the posters here who said hp would kill arcam even though the hp printer does not even print in metal. Same ones who keep seeing competitors in every article and who suggest that composites would kill ebm and that the leap engine has left the station. LOL Same posters see a merger with every major buyer of arcam printers which I showed ridiculous over a year ago.
I said at the time, and still think, the hp entry is much ado about nothing as it is not even here and certainly not proven although some of the sponsors such as JNJ are interesting.
Agree. Either a typo or the reason why the sale was announced under the new arcam announcement policy. Obviously hope for the latter as i'm looking for a significant q2 sales increase over the poor q1 level. Do like that we get repeat sales and that it appears new types of parts are being EBMed. Don't understand the pps weakness today, may be a good opportunity to add.
Investor, no doubt the 3d printing story is expanding into almost every manufacturing and part producing sectors which covers a lot of ground. Now the question is going to be how ebm vs laser plays out. Was sorry not to see EBM mentioned in that litany of printers specified. Maybe we will be added with expansion. What i'm even more focused on is the validation of renes statement that some parts are best suited to ebm, some to laser and some a wash. Looking for more and more parts to be validated for eBM production. We shall see but the law of averages suggests that a lot of these parts will be compatable with EBM. And that means more printer sales. We shall see how sales work out this quarter. But to all those naysayers, remember we sold 19 printers in q4 without announcements. I also wish in the quarterly report that buyers even of one printer would be specified so I can track who is buying them and how many are being sold for experimentation/research and not production. But then that hope will probably not be satisfied and will have to be happy with simply more news about adoption of 3d printing and the expectation that EBM will get part of any increase.
Thought you said the leap train had left the station, now saying we will make replacement leap blades and rene is saying final decisions on more haven't been made. Sure change positions fast.
Yes I hope we have every increasing number of parts, in various sectors, to be EBMed but i'm happy with the progress so far, albeit very slow.
So now you've moved from no bulk sales, to thousands of sales in a year to being happy with 10 a month or 30 a quarter. Love how your expectations change.
Myself, i'm happy with simply increasing sales, continuing to show increases in revenue and earnings and a future that suggests improvement and greater acceptance in the market place.
And yes, medical and aerospace are sufficient, would like an unlimited option, but I'll settle for increasing market share in those industries. I know you concentrate on your videos, and what is in them or not, but have you looked at the anticipated volume o parts in the aerospace and medical sectors and if arcam can get even a small part of that market it will not be able to keep up with demand as Rene has stated.
Myself, I've been happy with arcam's progress and laughing at those who kept shouting there would be no bulk orders and arcam would go to 10 and below. No for more news on additional parts being EBMed as Charlie has reported and for volume manufacturing to begin, and no the 30 leaps produced last year was not volume manufacturing. LOL
I'll be happy with even less than 5 per month but would prefer 200 per month, the number that would be minimu to get the 1000 er year you previously predicted. LOL
It was the tweek Rene promised us last cc. Remember he explicitly stated that there would be no real advancement in technology or real new products this year, only tweeks to improve commercialization or industrialization as he prefers enhancements. But like you i'd like to see some real technology innovations coming out of that hi res/hi speed research project that ended years ago. NOw lets see if we get a bump in sales. We did get a nice bump In pps today.
If we are simply guessing and fantasizing about what we wish for, I advocate a printer with multiple beds and ebm guns, that can print multiple different parts and materials at the same time, automatically moving them to a cooling bed and starting the next part while also recording quality control data on a flow basis. Have each printer represent a mini automatic assembly line. Have the FAA/FDA certify them from the flow data and immediately ship to market for implants and aircraft. IF that's what is meant, these concepts have been talked about here for months. Now rene, investors expect these innovations on market yesterday. LOL Seriously, L;m sure Rene and Arcam are well aware of technologies being used, concepts being utilized and are working towards maximizing the arcam product. WIsh we had more news and things moved faster but I don't think arcam needs our product advice. Just my two cents. Now i'll go back to my party where I;m serving on my lazy susans. LOL
Thanks for your response. Read both of your links very carefully and failed to see any reference to lazy susans. If you were just trying to use a cute term, so be it. But if you were attempting to describe a printer designed with separated beds for printing and cooling, printing of multiple parts at the same time or the stacking concept, that would have been much more appropriate and useful. Myself, I prefer describing the actual concept which has been discussed here for months and certainly is not new. Many have advised printers with stacking capacity or dual beds to produce multiple parts at the same time or to allow for cooling of one part while producing another. Those concepts are old news and i'm sure Rene is aware of them. I, like most, advocate and would love an update on technological advancements as that is the way to gain ground. But its obviously, while Rene and arcam are certainly aware of where they need to go, they will remain closemouthed about any such advances. But that is just my two cents, preferring discussion on the true concepts and suggested advances rather than cute phraseology. Enjoyed the pictures, missed seeing any lazy susans, LOL
Now lets see more articlers about new parts and production manufacturing that might be conducive to EBM
Thanks investor, I missed that update. Wonder if the stryker 3d machines are ebm or laser. I know john q public doesn't care about the breakdown between laser and ebm or which companies sell the printers, but obviously I do and wish they would specify.
I'm involved with stryker as they made me a ton of money when they bought mako which I had a big position in. Like 3d, I like the idea of robot surgery which is more exact and eliminates to some degree the human error. To me, mako and intuitive sugerical were the only robot surgery companies around and liked the stryker merger as mako was not doing as I hoped at the time. BUt made a nice merger profit. Think they and other major impant companies can and should make big moves into 3d printed implants as that seems to be where the future holds for all the reasons we have all read. Now lets see stryker, JNJ and all the other implant makers order a ton of arcam printers. Certainly a better focus than lazy susans, LOL
First you say that the leap engine is already in production last year based on 30 being built, then the leap engine has left the station, then composites will leapfrog ebm, then we won't get any bulk orders from ge then we will get 1000 orders in a year, now we are not going to get enough and NOW ARCAM NEEDS TO DESIGN A LAZY SUSAN INTO ITS MACHINES. Wow, you sure do pontificate on what arcam is doing or not doing. Drawing conclusions from what you see or don't see in a video and seeing killing competition, like EBAM, in every new PR or article.
The truth is we had excellent sales in the 4th quarter and poor sales in q1. Do you realize that orders, sales and deliveries are volatile??????
Bottom line you have no idea what is transpiring with or about arcam nor the technological knowledge to advise arcam how their printers should be built. I'll give arcam engineers the say over you, me or any other investor any day. I'll give rene the nod in steering the company over the expertise of an investor who said arcam was going to 10 and below.
Yep, movement is slow, and last quarter was not as good as I hoped, but it was still a good quarter and given our execution, especially in q4, and all the articles I've been reading about ebm progress i'll give arcam the time needed to reach its goals. Reason why I did not sell at 22 like some after q3 and then q4 earnings.
I do wish, as I've said, arcam was more forthcoming but it is progressing and I can understand why rene and arcam are as closed mouth as they are. Bottom line, despite your shout that the leap engine and the aircraft were in production middle of last year, they are not and we won't see real progress in printer sales, the bulk ones we all expect, (except you last year( when volume production begins, about 6 months to a year before, we will see the bulk orders. Remember, unlike some early reports, the current reports don't zhow real volume leap production beginning till next year. Just review the anticipated leap engine production numbers and the years those numbers are expected.
Very interesting and informative article. Learned a lot and was quite optimistic.
However, one complaint. You know from reading my posts how bullish I am on arcam and its future But with all this 3d movement, it would be nice to have more information and examples o where EBM is coming on the scene. Most of the articles re aerospace still emphasize the laser end of things. So far the only ebm part nearing commercialization are ebm brackets with some suggest of gear boxes with aero and brackets with gkn. Would be nice to have some definitive information re these parts and others that they were ebm produced, nearing adoption by the customers and experimenters and some time frame re commercialization and number of printers needed.
Oh well this will come and I have the patience as fully realize it is a ancient concept and commercialization. But would be nice to have some more news and specifics to wet my appetite.
Investor, thanks for your series of GKN posts. Very informative and confirms my conclusions. So now we have two parts in the mix, blades and brackets. Now for more. And lets have the FAA and FDA confirm the initial quality of the process to minimize approval periods. Approving the basic process should be relatively easy. And to insure the quality of each part, maybe a innovative flow process like sigma is offering, or similar products, might be suitable to insure that each part meets spec. Overall, a lot of good things happening, will just take time. I've said for a year that 3d may totally change the manufacturing process. Just need for it to develop and garner support. As I've said to sayers, this is a long term process and don't see deal breaking bogey men behind every new concept or PR. Our arcam is and well do well. Now back to 24 and beyond.
Investor, I agree with all of your comments and that the ER was overall good. You didn't even mention the significant eps growth, double what it was and way over your .01 prediction. Given our fixed costs, would have underestimated the eps as well. Wish he gave more info as to why the eps improved so much.
You also are correct that customers limit what Rene can say which is frustrating but understandable. Wish I had more ideas of the number of parts contemplated for EBM, answers to the leap question and how the rest of aerospace and medical are progressing. Would also be nice to have some expoansion to auto as it also involves metal but like the progress on the rocket front.
Wish in retrospect that I had asked buy delivery questions, why only 14 and whether any GE printers were shipped but still think rene would have punted. We still have no idea when those ge 10 will be delivered.
But unless I missed something, I have no better idea of the progress with rr, pw or gkn. Don't know where you gleaned that info but might have missed some. Think you had a good idea and I should relisten to the Cc.
Thanks for your involvement and interest and info. We need more arcam related discussion.
Investor, a bit tight lipped????
He didn't really answer any questions except for the configuration of the GE order. He punted on technology improvements and new products, he punted on new parts only admitting to the 9x and punted on the leap and other parts, essentially punted on progress and new initiatives. That the reason I didn't ask a question on deliveries, only 14??? and whether any of the GE order was delivered. When Rene punted on the avio questions and sales questions, I figured he would do the same on deliveries. We need more info
On the predictions, let be honest, results were a lot better than you expected, especially on eps and revenue. They were also way under what I expected given the poor deliveries. Finnish cam closes on revenue and all were wrong on eps which was a great report but hasn't gotten any favorable ink so far. Not even the analysts have pumped the excellent doubling of profit.
But lets hope the eps stabilizes and we get some positive news, any news on any front.
Robahamas, Rene answered that question on the CC. APC sells 50% to arcam ebm machines and the rest to competitors, i.e. laser and the demand is increasing which is why the expanded.
About the only question he answered. Punted on hi res/speed and technology improvements, punted on new products, punted on orders and on the progress on the GE printer backlog and punted on potential new parts to be made by ebm, admitting the 9x blades but punted on whether the leap would be involved and all other questions. No guidance and no information except for the apc material usage and that aerospace equates to the most printer sales.
Readers, did I miss anything else. Rene was as closed mouthed as usual which is why I did not ask a delivery question: i.e. how many of the GE order was delivered, if any and why only 14 deliveries with at least a 17 non GE printer backlog.
MEA CULPA Boy was I wrong. Guess it was too much to ask getting three in a role predictions right.
But thank you investor, finnish and Charlie (analyst report) for participating. We were the only ones brave enough or interested enough to opine. At least we did not get all those posts re how poor sales would be without any announcements although as it happened sales were poor. You guys did beat the analysts and deserve their pay check. LOL
At least I was right on the increased revenue of the subsidiaries with apc doubling and di santo up nicely, on the increased rd and personnel and facility costs and on the overall progress of arcam. Was also right on backlog (20 vs 19) but for the wrong reasons as it was due to my erroneous sales and delivery predictions. But that is my one claim to fame other than the above ancillary issues.
Finnish you win on revenue with 150 vs actual of 160 with me being way over and investor under. All of you underestimated revenue AND earnings which should be bullish. All of you beat the analysts. All were wrong on eps, way too conservative but I did not predict on that. But analyst 20, finish .22 and investor at .01 vs actual of .40. So arcam did well in earnings but blew the sales and deliveries. Investor with his 13 beat on deliveries and on sales although way off at 12 vs 6. so we all have claims to have done better than the professionals with you guys sharing the trophies and beating me substantially.
You guys were right that the estimation should have been q1 focused rather than overall progressive. I gave too much influence to the backlog and its ability to be deliviered. Is it true Finish that arcam generally does not deliver all its backlog in q1. I did not know that.
Overall my principle error was in the deliveries. I don't apologize for the sales estimate as with the lack of any news it was a guess. BUt I figured with aerospace and medical nearing production we would have growth. I was wrong. I figured with the expansion and backlog we would beat past delivery numbers. I WAS WRONG.
I know that the GE order would be partially/totally delayed. BUt that left 17 non GE orders that were deliverable. So as ive stated before, I'm shocked we did not at least equal the 16 delivered in q4 which would support 176 or thereabouts in revenue. WE DID NOT and I hope there will be an explanation on the CC. That lead to my delivery and revenue errors.
I was also disappointed with the lack of any guidance or information on our aerospace progress, fast/hi res technological improvements or other guidance and info. May be remedied on the CC but Rene is usually very close lipped either because that's his nature or customers demand it.
In any event, I must apologize. You guys were a lot better at this quarters predictions than me or the professional analyst. All were wrong on eps. Hope we get the guidance and info we want as there are a lot of questions re how our aerospace position is progressing and on technological advances. Hope the pps remains stable but so far is dropping in Europe. The er was not really that bad with good growth in revenue and excellent growth in eps but the deliveries and sales were very disappointing. We shall know more with the CC.
I'll give my two cents which I have repetitively before.
There will be no merger. Arcam has no reason as its doing fine on its own and given the financial support of the EU bet it would not allow one in any event. Others won't buy arcam as its EBM technology right now is too limited (companies like GE are using laser more than ebm) and its easier to just buy the printers at this point and have the expansion risk to arcam. Arcam may buy smaller companies but no reason to make a sell itself to another as it makes more money by keeping its technology and production in house. Plus its obvious that Rene is really into arcam and would not like his ownership diluted.
To the extent that expansion/development financing is needed beyond cash flow, the company will simply incur debt or more probably equity financing which it authorized at the last general meeting. Since arcam does its equity issuance orderly and at market pricing, dilution and price risk will be minimized except for the overreaction of the lemmings which we have seen each time a major shareholder lightens up. We have reached new highs and we shall see how the market reacts to the ER tomorrow. I"ve given my expectations and reasoning therefore.
Investor, so would I. Would love a really good er and corresponding pps rise Heck giving how well arcam is executing and the nearing of 3d manufacturing, I think we should be up to 50 as we were shortly after the split with a lot less good news than arcam has now
But for some reason the analysts Charlie posted about are even more negative. For reasons I've posted, I have trouble accepting your lower numbers and really have problems with those analysts. If either you or I, or both, do better than those analysts we should get their pay checks. LOL
We will know by this time tomorrow
Trader, you sure have a fixation on the Leap. You already posted many times that the Leap train has left the ebm station. Bottom line as Rene has said, we don't know and the leap specs have not been finalized. Per Rene we shall see the part ebm plays in the leap but decisions have not been finalized. Lets wait till decisions are finalized. The one thing is clear is that all parties are keeping information close to the vest and they will be flying probably before anyone decides to tell you. LOL
Trader, what plot thickens??
As far as I know you are the only one continuing making conclusions on the leap and the production of the leap. You posted that the leap engine had left the ebm train station many times. You also posted that the leap was already in production in the middle of last year based on the production of a reported 30 engines per your post All can be seen on the arcam posting history.
Why keep posting conclusions based on little or no evidence??? The facts are that the leap is not yet in volume production nor are the specs set in stone. Production will not start till middle of this year or more probably next year and as the leap is still being tested the specs are still in a state of flux. Who ever said ebm was on the leap now except your statement. Myself, I rely on what Rene has said, i.e. no decision on ebm on the leap engine has been made yet. We need to await final completion of the engine specs which will not happen till the leap actually enters volume production, probably next year.
Given the uncertainly, how can anyone know the final specs of the leap, rene doesn't and you certainly don't. Why not give leap posting a rest till we actually have some details one way or the other.
Trader, Got to pick and analyze your moves.I have also noticed and been posting on it for several quarters how arcam runs up to he er and then pulls back as you noted Reason why I've kept my large investment position which I've held for years. Also buy hot shares to play the ER and made a lot of money on it. Last two quarters the pull back happened before I sold but while you were predicting that arcam would fall to 10 and below I added a ton at 11/12 but was not happy selling at 22 as you posted you did so held those shares. Same with last quarter, was not happy with the pps fall so held given my positive outlook.
In any event, happy with my move as did not sell at 22. Been gradually selling my 3q hot shares at 24 and above but still have some q3 hot shares and all my q4 hot shares. Receiving more than a double is nice and of course still hold my investment shares. 24 is a lot nicer than 22 and higher will be hotter still.
We hall see how the ER shakes out but i'm a lot more optimistic than others and have explained why. We shall see tomorrow. Yes, you are easily worried.