Arcam is a small company with a technology that's not even at the "early adopters stage" so you can expect earnings reports from quarter to quarter to vary a lot. When I say they're doing fine I mean that the depth of their research and what they've developed is excellent. Sales are disappointing right now but it takes time to incorporate a new technology like this. I'm actually impressed that it's being adopted this fast. I see the P/E ratio was quite high, around 160 or 170 before the drop, but I'm not upset, yet. I'm not investing on a horizon of a month or a quarter because I see short term reactions from the market as a crazy thing that drives prices up or down wildly on perceived future value and emotion, especially at this stage! Again, I'm looking at the value of an excellent technology that is not even at the "early adopters stage" of the technology adoption life cycle.
If Alcoa's powder producing plant, Arconic, starts eating into AP&C's powder revenue, however, I'll be a bit apprehensive and will be wanting machine sales to increase a lot in the next year. That's where the greatest near term, 1 or 2 year, threat lies in my opinion. I've mentioned this before and I don't know why more on this list aren't more concerned about it. Arconic will be in Pittsburgh right next to Carnegie-Mellon. Arconic is a growth company spawned by a cigar-butt company that wants to be seen as a growth company so I expect them to be especially aggressive. I have no doubt that Jack Beuth and his group at CM are having input into Arconic and that technology from ORNL will make it's way into powder production. The question I hope someone can answer is whether powder demand is strong enough to support both Arconic and AP&C.
I don't know how to interpret and am puzzled by DiSanto's results. I would think that would be the way to provide product to those without the resources to buy a machine, and that should be a lot of companies that provide demand. Maybe this is due to ignorance of this technology on the part of the medical community and insurance companies. A doctor friend of mine that seems able to keep up with everything had no idea that metal 3d printing was so advanced. Nobody I know has had 3d printed titanium parts when they've had joints replaced. That might be because insurance companies are reluctant to fund procedures or prosthetic joints when data sets are small. A personal example about insurance companies: I just had a friend diagnosed with breast cancer whose parents both died in their 50's from cancer. Her insurance company denied her, at the last minute after she arrived for her appointment, a genetic test to determine the best course of treatment. Their response? Not enough data to support funding the test. (I hope they burn in hell for this.)
The general public isn't aware of how advanced metal 3d printing is. Very educated people that have procured NSA grants and think of themselves as being up to date on all technology don't know how advanced this is. Anecdotally: I showed a small 3d printed metal part to a group of scientist friends that do their research based on NSA and state grants. They had no idea but they had many things to say about how disruptive this technology can be. That I could order the part from iMaterialize for $30 and in their estimation it would take at least $100 to make the same part using subtractive means says a lot.
So Mr. Trader, when you have a company with a technology that's not even at the early adopter's stage, and that company has the technology and patent moat that it does, there's plenty of long term potential that should dwarf immediate concerns, that is, unless you're over invested and can't sleep at night. I recommend sleep.
