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.
Hey Tom, that article was 3 years ago. Would think the certification process is finished or close to it. How come we haven't heard anything about those parts getting into the new planes and aircraft engines. Do you know the status of these parts as well as any other parts besides the blades that will be produced by ebm and require arcam printers. We can use all the good news that we can get to goose the pps and volume and counter the naysayers who draw negative conclusions on every video, PR and lack of announcement. This is the year that all sources say volume production begins and the new engines get certified not a year ago like some posted. LOL
It took 2 years for the blades to get going, 8/14 when I first read about them till now. So the 2013 stuff should be about ready assuming no hitches.
Point is well taken but like technology competition which Trader becomes so easily concerned with, its not a zero sum game. There may well be room for arcam to build some blades and other technology others. On the cooling, correct me if i'm wrong but while EBM requires the 8 hour cooling the laser produced products also require post production heating to settle the part and stabilize it. EBM accomplishes this during the cooling phase. So net net the post production time consumed may not be that large and we don't know the exact difference, if any, at least I don't. So that 8 hours is not zero sum as laser also requires some settlement time, maybe just as much. And eventually we may see some benefits from the hi res/hi speed research project which Rene has been so silent on. But in a couple of CCs ago, hinted that we might see some results circa mid 2016.
The bottom line is how the buyer, the part user sees the advantages of EBM vs other competing technologies, cost, time, density, durability, ease of use/mfg, etc in a volume manufacturing context that will determine the buyers preference. THe key for arcam, directly and through surrogates that are researching/experimenting, is to make the case to buyers/manufactures that 3d provides advantages over conventional manufacturing and that EBM provides an advantage over other 3d printing and technologies so that more buyers/manufacturers will gravitate towards ebm parts and hence buy more arcam machines.
Thank you Tom and all the other posters who thoughtfully replied to my laser vs. EBM question. Well thought out and informative. Just wish I had more technological understanding to comprehend better what was being said. This is the kind of informative and thoughtful discussion I desire to promote and wish we had more of them. My only regret is there was not more direct positive information re where EBM might excel besides the blades. Must still rely on Rene's statement that arcam will have trouble keeping up with aviation demand and that some aviation parts are best produced with ebm, some with laser and some equally and it will be the research/experimentation printers and companies that will expand those parts falling within the ebm purview. Sure a nice change from all those nay sayers and worrywarts who shout fears about every new video, PR or technological innovation.
Thanks again and lets keep up the discussion and informative dissemination. Do you now see more aviation parts beyond blades???
Charlie, could not put it better myself and what I've been saying for over a year. Look at Arcam's long term plans and initiatives, its successes and execution and don't worry about every bogey man some see in every PR, video and technological initiative. LOL some are worrywarts, LOL
Thanks Tom for your informative posts. Refreshing to read someone's insight with the technological knowledge I do not have and with the level headedness not to get overwhelmed or nervous about every new technology read about. As I've said, and you confirm, most of these new technologies are not dangerous or competition to EBM as some keep fearing and that even if they might be the amount of time and process to become accepted by customers and regulators in the aviation and medical sectors preclude any near term dangers. Wish more posts were of your knowledge and insightfulness and less of the knee jerk conclusion and fear type. Please keep up the informative posting.
One area where I keep asking questions and ask for info and insight are on the current technologies. What are the advantages of laser and EBM in the current aviation and medical sectors and how do you see the possibilities of the Rene analysis that some parts are best with EBM, some with laser and some equal. Given all the experimentation and research computers, how many parts do you see besides blades being best suited to EBM and how might that effect arcam in sales and in what time frame. Difficult questions I know but that is my main interest given so far that laser seems to be the most focused on by GE and others. Why??? for the ignorant nontechnological investor. LOL
Thanks Tom for your informative posts. Refreshing to read someone's insight with the technological insight I do not have and with the level headedness not to get overwhelmed or nervous about every new technology read about. As I've said, and you confirm, most of these new technologies are not dangerous or competition to EBM as some keep fearing and that even if they might be the amount of time and process to become accepted by customers and regulators in the aviation and medical sectors preclude any near term dangers. Wish more posts were of your knowledge and insightfulness and a lot less of the knee jerk conclusion and far type. Please keep up the informative posting.
One area where I keep asking questions and ask for info and insight are on the current technologies. What are the advantages of laser and EBM in the current aviation and medical sectors and how to use see the possibilities of the Rene analysis that some parts are best with EBM, some with laser and some equal. Given all the experimentation and research computers, how many parts do you see besides blades being best suited to EBM and how might that effect arcam in sales and in what time frame. Difficult questions I know but that is my main interest given so far that laser seems to be the most focused on by GE and others. Why??? for the ignorant nontechnological investor. LOL
Trader, calm, don't panic every time you read about a new technology. It won't automatically hurt, destroy, arcam. Yes one has to be on top of, and concerned with, potential new technology. But heck, you read about composites and suddenly they will leapfrog ebm, there is a time lag in bulk orders and then fear there will be none, get one and suddenly avio will buy over 1000 printers then when you realize all 10 won't be sold in 2016 you worry there won't be many total sales. You read about EBAM and suddenly conclude that it will compete with eBM, see/don't see something in a video and reach conclusions re the impact on Arcam, etc, etc. Take it easy.
In this latest example you become excited that autodesk is giving money to this 3d printing company. First, a lot more money was given to it before and was wasted as the solar panel concept failed. Then it was given 60 million and burned through most. NOw autodesk gives what 22 million, much less than the other capital raises with no commercial product yet. Despite patents, a company must produce a commercial product which customers buy to be successful. Like with EBAM, no evidence yet of a product which will compete with EBM. Remember, lasers already compete with EBM. THe point being, even if a new product or technology is developed commercially, EBM may still have an excellent future. As Rene said, despite competing technologies and products, same parts/products are best produced with ebm, some with laser and some can be accomplished with either. It is not a zero sum game as keep stating.
Bottom line, yes arcam must be cognizant and aware of new technologies. Yes a new technology may trump EBM but that will have to be proved. At this time Trader, as I've been saying for years, frequently in response to your posts, there is room for a lot of technologies. While composites, lasers or other technologies may build some parts, even blades, there may still be a very large part for EBM to play as well. Composities/other technologies for some blades, EBM for others as well as other parts which will keep EBM printers humming.
Until proven that a technology is commercial, developed and accepted for market, and will displace EBM as a technology of choice, don't hand wring and become concerned. Ebm is proven and accepted and I assume even certified to some extent by regulators. Other technologies are just in the talk about stage and may never displace arcam at all. Don't fear and shout about evey new idea. Wait till we see whether those products are proved and will displace ebm. I accept what Rene has said, that arcam wll have trouble keeping up with the demands of the aviation sector and will add for the foreseeable future.
The vision in 3d possibilities is unlimited and goes way beyond aviation which is why in my opinion limiting the potential to aviation as some have done in the last few posts is shortsighted, almost as shortsighted as assuming we would not have any bulk orders because it took so long from when Rene first mentioned them to when we got them and assuming we would have poor sales because of the limited ones announced when we actually got 19 last quarter. There are the following vision potential:
1. We have all read about the new surgical and implant achievements being made in the medical field plus the beginning of bulk manufacturing in the US, china and elsewhere.
2. Ive read about the testing of 3d printing on Navy ships. Instead of having to arrange a meeting with another ship or airdrop to get new parts each ship could have a printer to print up new parts on demand.
3. Read about drones in the oil industry which can automatically survey and gather data, fly back to their docking area automatically and refit a new battery pack and where they discern a part failure where they are observing can send back sensor data to a 3d printer to print a replacement part automatically. A printer needed for each oil drilling area?
4. So far the focus has been on aviation and medical but what about car making and all other industrial manufacturing areas where they can take advantage of the speed, density, durability less manufacturing waste and all the other advantages which have been documented in 3d printing.
5. Increased printing on demand to avoid extensive inventories. All a company needs to do is have a printer and store material rather than individual parts. THen when something is needed, instead of having that part on hand, can just access their stored material which can be used for any part and print the part when needed. A printer for each plant or geographical area??
6. With more vision, each household having a printer to print up food on demand rather than going to the store and each hospital having printers to print organs on demand.
I could go on, but the point is being made. Many of those uses, oil, ships, etc are being tested and developed now, some of the others organs and food for the future. But the potential uses of being able to immediately convert raw powder to needed parts and items on demand is obvious. That's why I take issue with any poster who diminishes the importance of selling printers for research and experimentation and for contract printing as that can equate to a lot of printers===investor says 100 of our 200 printer sales so far have been for research/experimentation===and result in a lot of revenue and potential new printer sales.
The only real question is how much EBM will be able to capitalize on these potentials vs laser and what time frame till wide spread adoption. But the oil ship and medical uses are being developed and written about as we speak.
Now to leave the clouds and come back to the NOW, wonder if arcam will continue its good volume and get some pps pop. We shall see. Also wonder if something good will come out of the upcoming meeting.
.Almost 5x volume spike in US as well on no news that I can find. Maybe the impending meeting, maybe someone or someones know something. We shall see. But wish the pps had spiked equally. But I do like it as I've been whining about the volume and lack of pps movement for months considering arcam's good ERs and execution. We shall see.
Thank You Nobahamas. I am aware of course of the ortho and medical implant sector, just didn't mention it specifically as all the posting here and noise seems to be on the aviation sector. The hand wringers don't even mention this sector.
Thanks for the info on Materialize. I follow it as well. It has a nice nitch In the software sector along with Sigma which is one of my big spec stocks. Will make a bundle with it or lose the gamble, we shall see. But it does work with EBM and may be the answer to quick, easy and cheap part certification to satisfy the regulators IF it works LOL But lately both Sigma and Materialize have been very weak pps wise.
In fact my only negative comment on arcam lately is that Di Santo and contract manufacturing seems to be underperforming the other 2 revenue sources. As I've posted before, would like to se Di Santo expand in the medical implant area AND expand to add generic contract manufacturing to give arcam some exposure in this area. Would serve two purposes, increase contracting revenue AND expose customers to the benefits of EBM printing so they might buy printers themselves.
Trader you sure do like your videos and all the conclusions you draw from them which you have posted about continuously. If you see/don't see something in a video, a conclusion is drawn, you conclude that arcam won't have a lot of printer sales because of the lack of announcements and then when a bulk order is announced, you shout that automatically arcam will sell thousands of printers and then shortly repost that that won't be true because some of the deliveries will be delayed. Now because composites are mentioned, suddenly the blade issue which you said was decided and would result in thousands of printers is now a question mark. LOL The truth is Arcam will have a lot of printers sold due to blade printing but other materials will be used as well which will reduce the number of printers. We just don't know yet and I bet GE doesn't either.
IMHO, of course composites will be a major material to be used in aviation. THat is a given. It is also a given that EBM has a lot of advantages and will have a place in aviation Rene has said as much. So has GE. As REne said, some parts are best printed with EBM, some with laser and some equally.
Trader, because a PR or video shows ge likes composites, even for blades, does not mean EBM is dead or hurt There is room for both. Some areas of blades, aircraft parts may be better suited to laser, composites and/or EBM and others not best sited for EBM. ONe of the advanatages of printers being sold for research and experimentation, the 4th leg, which you poo pooed is to find new pratical uses for EBM.
Bottom line, IMHO there will be room for laser, ebm and composites in the aviation field and arcam will get its fair piece of the action. Do not hand wring everytime you see or don't see something in a video or something is said or not said in a PR. As RENE has said, the same RENE you questioned about the lack of bulk orders, the demand for additive manufacturing in the aviation industry will expand markedly and arcam will have trouble keeping up with demand.
While you question your commitment to Arcam, i'm strongly supportive of it along with my other stocks, some doing greatly and some not so greatly. LOL At one time not long ago, you suggested arcam was going down to 10 and below and I disagreed, adding a lot at 11/12. I think you will find that in time, with patience, arcam will be a great investment and I've bet accordingly. As ive said, and Rene confirmed, the leap train has not left the station and composites have not leapfrogged EBM as some have posted. The lack of announced sales does not mean poor sales and simply because it took a couple quarters for the bulk sales to come does not mean Rene was wrong several quarters ago saying they were coming The jury is still out and we shall see, but there is room for all the technologies. Any thoughtful longs disagree????
Your post does not make sense in the context of the issues raised.
1. I did not understand much of your post, even the part that made sense, who cares whether the technology is complimentary or not.
2 The issue was the powder expansion and number of EBM printers that might be supported. I disagreed with Investor re the number he postulated and he agreed with me in a supportive post.
3. The 40% that you question is not my number, it was Rene's as stated in a CC and investor agreed with my memory that Rene did state it.
4. So the issue and my point was that given the material expansion, it might not equal the number of EBM printers that Investor postulated as some of that material, 40% per Rene, was being sold to competitors and not EBM so the number of EBM printers would not necessarily be that high. Investor agreed.
So while like others you provide a nice graphic, in the context of the issue raised, your point and the relevancy of the post escapes me. We are selling a lot of powder to competitors and non EBM machines which means that there need not be the number of EBM machines INvestor postuated to use up that powder
Your point in the context of the discussion raised?????
Very good sign and I like it. Just like the doubling of printer capacity foretells a lot more printer sales. That's why I poo pooed the nay sayers who predicted no bulk sales because of the lack of such to that point and I disagreed with the shouters who argued that we would have poor sales last quarter because of the lack of announced sales and why I have shown up those who switch between saying no announced sales equals no sales and then predict 1000 to 2000 printer sales based on one bulk order.
Another area of contention. Does arcam sales and revenue have 3 legs or 4. One poster contends that its 3, printer sales for medical and aviation uses, contract revenue and material sales. I contend its 4, with the 4th leg being research and experimental printer sales outside the actual aerospace and medical space. Those research printers can lead to new uses for EBM and more printer sales so an important area and not diminimis as some claim
Now you contend that almost half of our printer sales have been for research If those numbers are correct, then I claim vindication that there is a 4th arcam revenue leg, research printers . Agree????
But per a CC a couple quarters back, Rene indicated that 40% of arcam's powder goes to competitor. So the increased material capacity could be reflecting an increase in other metal printers using arcam material in addition to the increase in EBM printers. We don't know exactly how many competitor metal printers are using arcam powder at this point. I'm assuming its increasing which is why such expansion is needed.
Thanks for the update Charlie. While I don't have much respect for analysts as I indicated in another post, it is refreshing to read some new info about arcam given the dearth of news sources. All other posters do is repeat what is already widely available and already read. Repeating articles on yahoo news. And it was interesting to read what this analyst said as the only one who ive read covering arcam even if I don't believe all they say. Correct me if I am wrong but I was closer than the analyst was pre ER and another poster was even closer than me. But only 3 of us were brave enough to stick our necks out pre earnings, me as earely as 12/27. Keep up the new info flow, I thank you
I wish Arcam and Rene would be more forthcoming with sales, individual business achievements, outlook, individual, technology innovations, etc. But I understand why he doesn't. Just frustrating from an investor standpoint and pps standpoint But its clear that Rene does not care about pps daily movement. He cars about the business growth and success. I cannot fault him on that.
But on the analyst point, of course they are anal and only care for the short term. They need to keep readers relying on them to keep their following and their leaders are short term or they would not care what they say monthly or quarterly. They need to keep dependent short term reads to keep their jobs.
But anyone who believes analysts are crazy. How many times do analysts miss their short term predictions unless the company spoon feeds them which is what they want. Its so easy to simply repeat what the company says and then be right then to predict. That is why analysts want so much company detail so they can repeat.
But the key to analyst credibility is this:: How many times do they issue buy recommendation after the company has already greatly appreciated or sell recommendations after the company has collapsed. How many times do they predict and announce those movements in advance. While the lemmings do listen to analysts, how many times do they actually predict in advance rather than just follow like sheep. That why they are short term and want so much company disclosufe. JMHO
Trader, I will answer your question fully. If I was IHI I would make no changes. They have good supply contract which will make them money. What makes you think that they see any writing on the wall or that their LPT business is headed down the drain.
1. You see mergers and acquisitions in every event, have posted that arcam should by x and that y should buy them. First, what makes you think that arcam wants to be bought or that they want to buy anyone even if the EU would let them with all the money they have given arcam. Why would IHI want to buy arcam, they have their own successful business. Even more important what makes you think their business is headed down the drain. First, they have supply contracts in the bank. Second arcam is only going to print some of the blades, IHI may still print the remaining and make a nice profit. You keep postulating that its either or when as I;ve said for a year it may be a combination. On the arcam board board you keep posting all the composite and other material contracts such as IHI and postulated that arcam would loose out, get no bulk orders and composites would jump ahead. WE now know that you were wrong and that it looks like a shared project with arcam getting some of the blades and others such as IHI getting others. So where is the business headed the drain, they may even get more orders than arcam.
2. So many conclusions based on similar flawed premises. As I said above, you feared that arcam would loose out on bulk sales. Then when proven wrong, you posted that arcam would get thousands of printer orders, then just a few days ago you posted that avio would add to its current bulk order with 2 new orders of bulk printers this year. Of course we now know that even the first order of 10 booked last year won't all be delivered in 2016. You have concluded that the leap train has left the station but as we know from rene no final decision has been made on the leap.
As I said before the ER in response to all the posting and hand wringing that we would not get any bulk orders and that sales would be bad because of the lack of announced sales as sales were actually good q4, lets wait till we have some facts before we shout conclusions. False premises and relying on what is seen/not seen in a video simly does not constitute a good basis for a conclusion and leads to the obvious repetitive false conclusions.
Arcam is progressing and will do well in the future. BUt its real success and the timing thereof is at the mercy of technological developments, newly found uses for EBM and most importantly the timing of its customers and their willingness to release data over which arcam has no control. All they can do is insure they have the needed capacity and that there printers are quality performers and will offer the result customers want. THat will all come in time and wishing that arcam will buy 2000 printers this year as some posts indicated will not make it happen.
I agree with your thesis, been advocating for the advantages of arcam in mfg for a year. But why only advocate enhancements in the process, why not enhancements ANDS fast EBM and Hi res EBM and whatever other technological innovations are on the horizon.
By only disappointments so far are the lack of clarity from EBM to give the pps a pop and the pps and volume that we see on a daily basis.
But I could add my real complaint is with the general market and all sectors so far this year. Now that is depressing.
Rene did not address any issues directly, the ebM position on the leap (ge has not guided yet), technology issues, whether arcam would embrace laser in the future (our description includes additive mfg not ebm) nor any other issue raised. Disappointing, but I understand Rene's position on all these issues but is frustrating. BUt yes, Trader, he also punted on fast ebm.
That fine if the buyer can wait till new technology is incorporated in the printers and quality control is achieved, eliminating all the new technology bugs. Remember arcam has not announced a time frame for technology updates and avio and ge will be starting volume production mid this year. May not have the luxury to follow your delay suggestions. We shall see. Many open questions which Rene did not address in the cc as ive noted.
Agree, reason I;m so heavy in arcam and sing its praises so much.
Just wish arcam was more forthcoming in giving guidance re sales, number of parts being considered for ebm and guidance re technology and initiatives ongoing. But I do understand the need to keep customer confidences and competitive secrets. Just makes investing hard. But I said if the company did as I predicted I would consider it a good ER and it did as I and 2 others here were very close. I closer on revenue and deliveries and others on sales IMHO when ebm manufacturing commences and the word gets out we will retrace the heady 2014 days. But I am an optimist re the arcam story Lets keep up the positive arcam discussion
Your absolutely right and I was a little disappointed as well. Not on Arcam's actual prospects but on the income albeit normal for a growth company, the lower revenue despite higher printer sales than I anticipated and most particularly by Rene's silence and unwillingness to give guidance, vision, or news on initiatives such as other parts and technological initiatives and timing. I'm sure there are competitive reasons for arcam and its customers to stay silent but it is frustrating. BUt i'm still very optimistic but with rene saying some of the backlog will not be delivered in q1 or 2016 for that matter, predicting deliveries and revenue will be difficult for q1 and beyond. But you are right, the street pps action has disappointed me the last 3 ERs which have been relatively good per my analysis and the reporting analysts. I agree with trader, the tea leaves are saying 2016 will be good but I have different reasons than 20 ge buys.
This post is more accurate and realistic re GE. Need to deliver these 10 before worry about your 20 more, in your 2 anticipated orders in 2016 But you are forgetting demand from other sources. I'm still optimistic because I expect a lot of single orders, even if they are not announced like we got 19 in q4. I'm also optimistic from other initiatives. However Rene is very closed mouth, not to lower expectations per se but to accommodate his customers who apparently like to keep competitive secrets.
But I agree with you. ER was good although the street did not like it and the cc was disappointing because Rene did not say nothing. He is accommodating GE by not giving guidance on the engines, no real update on other parts or sectors and silent on technological innovations and timing. Note per rene the Leap jury is still out and the train still at the station. LOL One example of Reneisms is how he handled the laser question. well our name says additive mfg not EBM. Moreover no announcements unless sales are 20 million. So its obvious we will be investing quarter to quarter in a practical vacuum.
Yep that's 3 of us very close, i'll call it a tie. you got the sales and backlog and I got the deliveries and revenue. All 3 of us were close.
You had a lot of good catches on the cc as well. Rene does not believe in giving much info and leaves it to his customers to comment. I caught that nibble laser comment, we mention additive mfg not ebm and that cagey answer to the engine question. Only 9x and nx were guided on by GE and ge has given no guidance on the leap yet. Which means its still an open question and the train has not left the station. Jury is still out. Rene also punted on the technology questions and outlook. He is very cagey. I also noted that he said that all of the GE printers would not be delivered in q1. Did he say 6 would be delayed. So it will be harder to predict deliveries next quarter but with 27 in backlog vs 14 this quarter, deliveries and hence revenue should be good.
Overall Rene did lot of hinting re future orders and business which is bullish but very cagey on giving info which makes predicting and investing difficult. Short term, sadly the street did not like.
Hey Nobahamas what happened to the 75 to 80 printer sales you guessimated a few posts back. Now its 50 to 70, what changed???? Kinda a big range??? We shall see. So far Finish and I are in virtual agreement, with he being a tad more optimistic. Care to add your two cents with a little more specifics and delving into revenue, deliveries and backlog. Given the lack of news its all guessing but an interesting intellectual exercise, promoting interest in the ER which is of interest to all of us and focusing on issues germane to us long positive arcam investors.
Thanks Finish, you are the only poster who actually met my total ER challenge, including analysis and reasoning. Getting interesting, hope others join.
I'm not sure if the "your estimates" referred to mine, Charlie"s or some others. If its me, don't know where your corrections are as we are almost exactly equal with you being a tad more optimistic than me. I have posted multiple times to others that its deliveries and not sales that are booked into revenue which is why I did't go wild on revenue considering the 10 GE sales. But you went into more detail in approximating the subsidiary revenue while I only estimated it based on past quarters. I also relied heavily on Rene's statement that q4 would be by far our best.
In my post 2933 on 12/27/15 I also indicated that given the 3 new atomizers and more metal printers in use I expected a pop in APC revenue as well as di santo based on rene's comments and the expansion in medical as well as the possible expansion in general 3d contract printing. So if you were referring to my analysis, please reference the few things that need correction. To be specific all estimates were not based on orders. Mine were based on deliveries and my expected revenue estimates therefrom.
The reconciliation in estimates. Your 3 quarter numbers were exactly correct.
SALES: The only data we knew was the 10 GE. I guessimated 6 less than qr 2014 and 3 more than our best 2015 quarter of 12 so by brute force I picked 15 non bulk sales as reasonable.
So you picked 16 vs my 15. CLOSE Both guesses without news but I
like your number better
DELIVERIES: You picked 16 vs my 14. We both guessed that arcam may have delivered 2 machines from 4q sales based on the expansion and possible early sales. I also agreed with your that per Rene one quarter turn around all 14 in back log could have been delivered. Based on that I would have agreed with your 16 delivered and said so. But I guessed that customers might have elected for a delay of say 2 printers which is why I reduced to 14. IF no customer delays, then we would have agreed on 16. May have been overly conservative on that.
BACKLOG: We are the same. While you picked 24 in backlog vs my 23, that is explained by slight discrepancy in sales and deliveries above.
REVENUE: Almost identical and again explained by the difference in deliveries and perhaps subsidiary expectation. your 186.64 vs my 180. Like your number better.
THanks for the feedback and intellectual exercise. Amazing how close we came, although you provided even better subsidiary analysis. We do think alike
Come on guys, you only have less than a day to add your 2 cents. Again, if you have any disagreements in my analysis, would enjoy hearing them.
WOW, I like your thinking. 75-80 systems. I'm only predicting 54, based on my 4q 25 sales. That means if you are right there are a lot of unreported sales in q4 which I hope for and will sure quiet all those who shout that sales will be poor because of the lack of announced sales. Hate those who conclude and shout on very little data and false premises. Remember all those Trader shouts that arcam can't get even close to our sales figures because of the lack of announced sales??? LOL Hope you are totally right.
But I don't understand yours and Carlton's revenue predictions. We are close in total revenue prediction as I am predicting 4q 180 revenue vs the analyst 177, your 165 and carlton's 175. Going from memory so if i'm off please correct. So our revenue predictions are close, with yours under mine.
Yet you predict so many more printer sales. How so????? I've allowed for increased revenue from other sources and the printer sales to get 30 over 150, the highest other quarter in 2015. Since Rene said that 4th quarter would be by far our best, I think a 30 minimum revenue increase for the 4q over our previous best 2015 quarter is reasonable. But assuming the revenue increases in other sources which I think reasonable and I included, if we really had that many more printer sales in q4 that I predicted our revenue should be way higher than my prediction than lower as you predict. Certainly should be more than a 30 pop over our 150.6 best prior quarter for 2015. RIGHT?
You are predicting at least 46 printer sales to get 75 for the year in the 4th quarter. How would that equate to less than 180 in total q4 revenue. I am confused and interested. Please advise. If you are right, i'd expect a lot more than 180 in 4q revenue, probably over 200. Am interested in your reasoning.
Tinker I essentially agree with you. Hope they will comment on hi speed/res technological improvements which Rene said couple of CCs ago would occur no sooner than mid 2016. Based on expansion in materials predict a revenue boost there and expect it in Di Santo ago. Hope di santo expands to general contract printing as well as that is a gap in Arcam's offerings which can interest contract customers in buying printers themselves.
I;m also interested in the ER as you well know. Why not enter our good natured competition and offer your analysis/insight re the upcoming 3d with explanation and reasoning. Will add some pizzazz and interest to the discussion, focus on real arcam issues and not imagined competitions and issues and see who comes closest for ER bragging rights LOL So far, only one other neck is stuck out and that only partially with a prediction of 28 sales vs my 25 and a prediction of 270 revenue vs my 280 nothing on backlog or deliveries if I recall correctly. Your thoughts????
Perhaps but maybe EBM can build a better mousetrap aka part. Siemens won't know till they experiment and try. I think every experimental design facility should have at least one ebm printer for RD and experimentation.
Remember in that article cited below, they mentioned that they made a part with both EBM and laser and both were as good or better than the traditional mfg part.
WONDER WHICH, EBM OR LASER, DID BETTER IN THE TESTING. They never seem to mention that. But per Rene, throughout the 3d sector some parts best made with ebm, some with laser and some a wash. we need more RD and experimentation to increase the EBM pot.
Agree totally. Just would be nice for them to mention it as we can use all the PR we can get.
But as I stated in another forum, any 3d facility would be short sighted to not include at least one EBM printer. While it is obvious that laser is the predominant technology for GE, etc so far, EBM definitely has its place and that is not limited to just blades. Any company even considering 3d printing, should have at least one EBM printer for RD, experimentation and analysis re what EbM can do better or as good cheaper and faster. To me sales for RD and experimentation is the 4th arcam leg to go with regular printer sales, material, and contract printing revenue. Not perhaps the greatest revenue source, but potentially has the greatest potential as new EBM uses are found requiring more printers. will be up early early Monday morning to see where we are so far. you've seen my analysis
With all these 3d facilities opening up across the globe, use of 3d printers is obviously increasing. I just wish they would mention EBM more, especially in Sweden.
No comment on the ER, only days away??????
EARNINGS REPORT PREDICTIONS
we are now within a week of the Arcam ER. Last December 27, 2015, in post 2933, I endeavored to give my 4q ER prediction. Some offered their thoughts, with analysis and reasoning, which I appreciated especially since they were more optimistic than me.
Time for the last thoughts going into the ER. I stick by my predictions especially since we have had no data since my 12/27 predictions. To recoup, deliveries 14, backlog 23, sales 24/25, revenue 580 and revenue growth 71%. In that post I offered my reasoning and analysis. We shall see next Monday. But last chance to offer any insight or analysis if you are interested in such a intellectual exercise Did well last ER, neck is out, we shall now see how close I come especially with the lack of real news. But I did the best guessimating I could with the little data I had and my reasoning power. Do you guys still anticipate 80 total printer sales and 28 last quarter both well over what I postulated.
Now lets see how well we do, how well arcam does and most importantly how the pps will be affected. Good luck to all of us longs.
Agreed. But tell that to the analysts, media including motley fool and posters who keep mentioning arcam in the same breath as companies in prototyping only, non metal and especially the noise about HP and its non metal printer that is not even existent yet as far as I know. Last I learn, sometime in 2016, but nothing since and will be non metal. Yet everyone is so scared of it and other bogus competitors. My concern is for those developmental printers and researchers to prefect more ebm uses.
Agree, but where is the mention of EBM and arcam printers??? Good that arcam is progressing well with its 4th leg, sales of printers for research and new uses for EBM, but we need successes, new parts and more importantly new arcam printers sold info. Now those are the type of articles and news that will move our woeful volume and pps action. 3d printing advances good, EBM advances great.
Agree. Nice lets see RR GO with EBM and buy more printers. I think EBM has proved that it is equal or better printing some parts and sticks by their customers with support which is why customers rebuy. Time for RR to commet to EBM or am I wishfully thinking
Tamhas, methinks you are being disingenuous. Initiating posts on MF and its relation to arcam 3 times and counting is to me an unreal focus on the MF. Others may disagree.
But what have I blown out of proportion, what food fight have I started????? You commented about reading about arcam in MF and getting interested in arcam from a board you mentioned. I simply stated that I would not rely on either to buy a stock, just use as a beginning for due diligence.
I commented that in the MF article I cited, purportedly to discuss the 3d sector, it omitted arcam which I thought was a mistake. Where is the food fight or blown out of proportion???
I stand by my statement that Arcam does not get its due. On the yahoo arcam news board since Sept 1 there are 4 articles mentioning arcam, one simply saying it has no data to evaluate arcam's ER which I've proven to be erroneous as I did analysis arcams ER twice, the last one coming closer than most analysts do on an ER.
But compared with the articles MF has done on 3d printing since Sept 1 I do think it has given arcam short shrift. As has the rest of the media. My opinion. Feel free to disagree but don't call me blowing anything out of proportion.
To sum up. I do not think arcam is getting its due from the media, including MF. If you disagree fine but why keep bringing it up. And other than defending Motley's coverage of Arcam, what do you disagree with in my posts which I think were quite forthright. Discussing the 3d printing OEM sector as MF frequently does without mentioning and evaluating arcam is IMHO a disservice to arcam. Myself i'd rather focus on the upcoming ER which I previously guessitmated and a couple others added their insights.
I add my appreciation for your going to the investor meeting and offering to express our questions and then inform us of what transpires. I;m a non techny also but very interested in arcam.
In addition to trader's questions which I am also interested in, I will add the additional questions which I think we are all interested in. Sadly, does not look like I will be able to attend which I grossly regret.
(1) To what extent does arcam expect to be on the GE engines, specifically Leap and 9x, only the blades or other facets as well.
(2) To what extent does arcam expect to participate in the overall aviation part process. What parts besides the blades??
(3) What does Rene/Arcam see as the advantages of EBM vs Laser and how big a participation does arcam expect in the metal 3d printing sector.
These questions are probably too specific, speculative and competitive related to get answers, but they are material to arcam's expectations and I think of interest to all
Thanks again for even offering. If history is any guide, arcam won't say much about meeting.
It shows that Arcam is looking towards west coast medical and aviation, etc as well as east coast. I like the way Rene and arcam think and execute. I would not restrict to just Honeywell. There is boeing and a variety of other aviation/medical and metal concerns. Arcam is looking towards which I like
Tarnhas, I do not rely on boards or Motley Fool or any one source to make stock picks for me. I use all of the above to expose me to ideas and then do my DD, using a variety of sources and certainly not just what I see/done see in a video or any one source. I got interested in 3d way back in 2013 because the concept and potential interested me. I'vBue posted a lot of this history on the arcam board which was my first exposure. Bought DDD a long time ago as my first, could not decide on who would be a winner so bought a basked including all OEMs as they became public except for SSYS which I never liked because of its absence of metal, consumer fanfare when it first bought makerbot and its consistent money losing. First heard of arcam, which has gotten no real ink now or back then, from Gary Anderson's web site. Did my DD from a variety of sources and then fell in love with arcam and its novel technology and performance execution. Gradually became disillusioned with all the others except for Arcam for a variety of reasons.
Your need to continue to focus, chat about and defend MF amazes me. I would never buy based on MF or boards alone as you say you did. But when a media source, which is what MF is, to promote articles and stock picks, talks about 3d printing as many of their articles do I expect them to include the one executing 3d printing company and the one real metal company, arcam. It hasn't. I fault that, you might not. To me any article addressing the 3d printing sector should at least include arcam one of the leading OEM companies and the only one using EBM and pure metal. If you disagree, so be it. But I find it to be a deficiency in the authors to not discuss all the leading OEMs, the difference between lasers and EBM, metal vs plastic and laser v s laser. They do not.
You may disagree with my comments but they are there I don't think anyone can conclude that MF or any media source has given arcam its due. And doing DD there are so many advantages of arcam over any of the others----revenue, profit, execution, praises from GE and GE adoption, etc----that it deserves a lot more attention and pps support. JMHO But I challenge the position tat arcam has been given its due in 3d printing articles and media sources amongst the ones generally available. I exclude technical journals and foreign sources which aren't readily available to USA lay investors
I think you are disingenuous Tamhas. I read the article you mentioned but was not impressed with its depth or understanding of arcam's achievements. But yes it did mention Arcam. I never said arcam was never mentioned. But the article I referred to did not mention arcam and the fool frequently poorly portrays arcam and the 3d printing industry. Does not fully give arcam credit for its aviation progress with GE, mention that the differences in what companys provide, metal vs plastics, and the focus of each. What period of time were those 107 articles published. Please note I never said MF did not ever mention arcam, only that it gave arcam short shrift and i'll go further many of the articles are not totally accurate re arcam and its focus and achievements.
Now you can have your own opinion as can I. But ccompared to the focus on ddd and ssys, I DEFY any poster to argue with documention that arcam is given its just due in either number of articles or content of articles. No one can argue that arcam gets its share of ink. I will take a brief look see but I bet the bulk of MF 3d printing articles do not mention arcam and that most of the recent 3d printing articles do not either mention arcam or give it a fair and accurate shake re what its accomplishing. The one that prompted my comment sure did not. Just like you should not see bogey men competitors in every press release and articl, one article on arecam dos not a trend make. BUt thanks for having the need to count all the arcam references MF did in what ever period you used But I DEFY you to make the case that arcam as the only 3d printing company showing a profit, executing and showing good sales revenue growth is given its fair due with motley fool or any other widely read media arena. I only count what I as a general USA investor can access.