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.
AI
