“Forget about Facebook — Let’s Make Some REAL Money” (Motley Fool)

Deciphering the 3D printing picks for the Fool's "next Industrial Revolution"

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, March 6, 2012

I don’t necessarily like to gang up on the same publisher two days in a row — but, well, the great legions of Gumshoe readers are asking for it, and we do aim to please.

So just like yesterday, today we’re digging through some Motley Fool foofaraw, an ad they’ve been sending out this week that promises that their next investment idea will be “bigger than the internet” and the “next trillion-dollar industry” and something that will “change everything it touches.”

And you can only waggle words like that in front of your friendly neighborhood Gumshoe for so long before he lunges for the bait. So what are they pitching?

Well, to make a long (really loooong) story short, it’s all about 3D “printing” — you’ve probably seen the plastic prototyping machines and three dimensional laser carving devices (if not, they include a cool video in the ad), and that’s basically the revolutionary idea the Fools are touting. And naturally, they have three companies to tease to us today as they promise great riches from the 3D printing revolution.

The technology has been around for about 30 years, used by industrial designers and generally owned by large companies and universities in the early days, as the cost of the machines and the materials, and the utility of them, made it a questionable endeavor at first. But like all technologies, it has been gradually improved and the costs have come down and the much greater computing power available to all these days has made for whole new worlds of applications for these 3D printing systems, several competing versions of which are available now at prices that most companies would put on their American Express card. In fact, just a few months ago I had a new dental crown made while I watched, with a blank porcelain insert carved in a little computerized shaper that could arguably be called a “printer” to fit the exact dimensions calculated by my dentist’s computer. It was kind of cool, and I didn’t have to wait a week for a centralized lab to mold my new fake tooth.

But I digress — there’s some way for us to get rich here, no? At least, that’s the Fool’s premise. How do they tease out the opportunity? Here’s a taste:

“… just like 2D printing did, 3D printing is exceeding expectations by rapidly becoming both cheaper and better.

“Machines that cost more than $100,000 a decade ago are now selling for $1,299.

“And they can now print with more than 99 different materials. Not just high quality plastics, many of which are completely recyclable (like milk jugs) or biodegradable. But also some of the most durable and useful physical materials we use in the ‘analog’ world, like wood, glass, rubber, steel, and concrete. Some printers can even handle biological materials like human kindney cells. Or composites of more than two materials that create special properties like heat resistance. Some can make three dimensional objects from ordinary printer paper and even chocolate.

“But who would want to print in 3D?

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


“How about an architect building a model? Or a product designer making a prototype? Or a dentist casting a mold?

“These are some of the professionals who are already gaining a competitive edge by using 3D printing technology….

Sounds pretty impressive, right? But that also sounds like the market where these machines are already being used, maybe revolutionary but not hitting your home just yet. So what’s the vision for the next few years as these machines become popularized and move into the home?

“There is no longer any important difference between a computerized design that exists in “the cloud” and
a real, physical thing.

“If you remember the old Star Trek shows, which take place in the distant future of the 23rd century, a device that could print physical objects from computerized designs was called a “replicator.”

“Incredibly, this science fiction is now fact.

“And here’s how smart 21st century capitalists like you and me can take this real-world replicator straight to the bank….

“If a physical object is a software code, then… there are no longer economies of scale in manufacturing.

“In other words, it won’t make sense any more to pay Chinese factory workers to make 100 million duplicates of the same product. Better to pay American designers to make 10,000 different products specially tailored to individual customers — in the exact size and style they want to buy. Products they can receive in the mail, or print out at Home Depot, FedEx Office, Wal-Mart, or whichever retailers are smart enough to embrace this technology first.

“If a physical object is a software code, then… everyone from an aerospace engineer to an ice sculptor is really a computer programmer creating digital designs.

“And the market for those designs will be just like today’s market for music, movies, and books. You’ll have the iTunes store, Amazon.com, and other legitimate download vendors on one side of the law, and a thousand fugitive ‘pirate bays’ on the other. Your grandchild’s Happy Meal toy will be scanned onto your smart phone at the cash register and it will be finished printing before you get home from the drive-through.

“Finally, if a physical object is a software code, then… the companies that make the best design software and the companies that can offer a comprehensive package of hardware, input materials, and servicing stand to make HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.”

OK, so all of us amateur futurists can argue about whether any of this makes sense, and whether forging precise 3d objects is the same as assembling complex machines made of hundreds of objects, but it is at least a feasible future … someday.

So who, then, are these companies that are supposed to make us rich as this technology takes over the world?

In typical fashion, the Foolies give us one … and tease us about two others. The one they tell us about up front is one of the leaders in computer design, Dassault Systeme (DSY in Paris, DASTY on the pink sheets), which sells the SolidWorks software system as well as many other 3D and “virtual” design systems.

“Right now, we’re at the very beginning of the transition from the “garage” stage to the “mass market” stage.

“And that’s the moment when you want to be investing.

“Sure, you could make some money later.

“You could wait until the market is more ‘proven.’ But as we’ve seen, this technology is already scientifically sound, and it’s already used by professionals in every imaginable field of human enterprise.

“You’d really be waiting for other investors to catch on. Because when the big money on Wall Street finally embraces 3D printing, the growth in this industry is going to be massive.

“Did you invest in Apple in 1980?
“Did you invest in Microsoft in 1986?”

That’s how they tell us we’ll feel if we buy the pioneers of the 3d printing revolution — and apparently Dassault Systeme is one, with a strong leadership position in computer aided design (CAD) and a laundry list of top global manufacturers who depend on their software. The Fool copywriter pitches the idea of the “razor and blade” model, which we love, and which has already been abundantly profitable in the printing world (HP makes money from selling ink cartridges, they lose money selling printers), but they expand that to say that the CAD software of Dassault Systeme is like the “shaving cream” that makes the razors and blades work smoothly. A stretch, perhaps, but a nice way of explaining things. Apparently David Gardner recommended Dassault Systeme a few years ago, and that’s a $10 billion company that’s profitable and fairly well known, at least in their business … but these other picks are more obscure, and are newer members of the Fool universe.

I also have to share with you this little tidbit from the ad, since it paints a pretty picture of the investment newsletter business that we study each day:

“The reason David’s track record is so reliable is that, unlike all the acrobats, lion-tamers, and clowns who perform in the three-ring circus that is called (with unearned dignity) “the financial news and advisory industry”… David picks great companies.

“Great companies. Not great bubbles.

“Because truly timing the market — picking a stock on exactly the right day, the right week, or even the right month, is impossible.

“Nobody in the “circus” admits this, but it’s true.

“Good investments are made for the long term. I don’t mean 100 years. 5 is plenty. 10 is even better.”

So as usual, David Gardner is likely to hang on to some breakthrough-potential companies for many years, no cautious little 20% stop losses here, not if you’ve an eye on a ten-years-off future that might present thousand-percent-gains — and of course, if you’re planning for those long term winners and giving loose reins to the stocks of small, innovative companies, well, you’ve got to diversify to give yourself a better chance of picking the winners — the Apples instead of the Palms, if you will.

What, then, according to David Gardner are the unnamed companies we should be buying in addition to Dassault? Here’s a touch more:

“When he recommended a company called Intuitive Surgical in 2005, it had already grown 500% in two years. But after he recommended it to his readers again in 2006, and again in 2008, and again in 2012, it gained an incredible 1,046% more.

“And that’s the same opportunity David sees in the 3D printing hardware, materials, and servicing industry. These are the machines that unlock the trillion dollar potential of the revolutionary software programs created by Dassault Systèmes, the company we talked about earlier.

“But unlike Dassault Systèmes, these next two companies aren’t hidden secrets.

“In fact, a lot of the so-called experts think they’re overvalued.”

And “overvalued” is one of Gardner’s criteria — he won’t call something a “rule breaker” unless they’re a top dog and first mover in their industry, and unless Wall Street already thinks they’re “overvalued.”

So with that long lead-in (hey, if I had to read the whole ad, you can suffer through just a piece of it), what are the clues we’re given for those other two companies?

“… a lot of investors who were initially excited about 3D printing started to cool off their enthusiasm over the past fall.

“But now that these companies have released new earnings information that leapfrogged over the analysts’ expectations, we’re seeing them rise in value once again….

“Together, these two American companies control more than 80% of the total market for 3D printing.

“How do you decide between two good choices?

“Choose Both.”

And the specifics for the first company?

“One company is focusing on the upper end of the market, where they sell printers with the latest technology to business customers like Hyundai, Black & Decker, Medtronic, BMW, Oreck, Chipotle, Ducati, and Toro for an average of $51,000 per unit (some units cost more than $1 million).

“They just shocked Wall Street by reporting a year-end income figure that more than doubles last year’s record earnings. They’ve locked in a sweetheart distribution agreement with old pro Hewlett Packard to sell their products and services in Europe. And unlike most fast-moving technology companies, they don’t have a penny of debt, just tens of millions of dollars to pour back into R&D.”

That one is Stratasys (SSYS)

Stratasys is one of the founding companies of this business, and they do indeed look a bit expensive — they make the “printers” and rapid prototyping systems and the supplies for them, and they are profitable and fairly small (market cap around $700 million), but they area also trading at a substantial premium to the market, with a forward estimated PE of about 23 and an expected growth rate of about 15% … though it’s worth noting that analysts have raised their estimates for this year and next, and that the company has beaten estimates handily for the last four quarters.

How about the second one?

“The other company is taking the “razors and blades” strategy to the consumer and education markets, offering an app store full of online tools that make it easy for everyone to use their 3D printers, and selling the basic units themselves for just $1,299. (Believe it or not, this is roughly what the first desktop 2D printers cost in 1984 when we adjust for inflation… today many of them cost less than a box of paper.)

“They’re also reporting revenues 47% higher than last year, nearly doubling the free cash on their balance sheet. They have “almost as many patents as employees” (and they have 1000 employees). They just bought out their biggest direct competitor. And their founder and chief technology officer is the scientist who first invented 3D printing at that tiny laboratory I told you about — beating technology giants like 3M and Fujitsu to the punch.”

This one would be the faster-growing competitor in this micro-sector, 3D Systems (DDD). Interestingly enough, DDD is a bit cheaper than SSYS and is growing faster and is far less predictable in its earnings trajectory … but it’s also a bit larger, with a market cap just over a billion dollars. DDD is gambling on the home market, creating an “app store” for hobbyists to develop their own applications for their small Cube 3D printer, the first one designed for home users — it’s decidedly “high end” but they’re providing an online community for people to share 3D designs that can be produced using this $1,300 home printer.

Both companies are certainly active and growing, with lots of products ranging from the little home and “do it yourself” printers to the large high-spec prototyping machines for design offices and actual production printers that are building products or pieces of products. And both are certainly relying on the “razor and blades” model to create their own ecosystems of installed machines that will allow them to eventually ramp up into high-margin sales of disposables and “print cartridges”.

If you’d like to look into these, they are exactly the kinds of stocks that individual investors and investing pundits love to cover (lots of whiz-bang technology and high growth potential), so you’ll certainly find plenty of articles to get a good background — you can get a quick start with this piece from Forbes and this story from the Economist last year. There are also a few other companies active in the business, and new innovations and kits for building your own 3D printers, not unlike the early “make it yourself” personal computers, but it would stand to reason that the first few companies to develop a large user base would have a strong advantage if the industry really explodes outside of the current established professional prototyping market. I have no idea whether these will be millionaire-maker companies in the decade to come, but, well, there’s no reason why you’d trust my opinion on the future anyway — it’s your money, after all, so let us know what you think with a comment below.


guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

43 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
S.METZING
Guest
S.METZING
June 3, 2012 5:22 am

Air Force building a jet could be a ways away but, perhaps, NASA making use of a 3d printer seems viable. Replacement parts on a Mars mission might be hard to come by but having a 3d printer on-board with a supply of resins, oxidized compounds or whatever advance materials they can come up with …. add a little anodized coating to it and ..wah-la…you got yourself some spare parts or a tool. Or anything exotic, once they get to Mars.

Train
Guest
Train
July 18, 2012 6:48 pm
Reply to  S.METZING

Having worked with NASA, I’ve already seen some 3D printer finished products they’ve spit out.

vashil
Member
vashil
June 20, 2012 2:52 pm

As mentioned below, the 3D printing company that is making human organs is ticker: ONVO. I’ve been reaping handsome profits as it is being invested in in an orderly but very aggressive manner. Hopefully it’s price explosion will not turn out to be a trap move. PS, the laser technology referred to in the above article is not 3D printing. That is an older subtractive technology. 3D printing is an additive technology.

Add a Topic
2776
Add a Topic
2776
Add a Topic
2776
vashil
Member
vashil
June 20, 2012 2:57 pm
Reply to  vashil

I should have written “as mentioned above”. Also it might be noted that Motley Fool did not imply ONVO as a target investment as far as I can gather, but just stimulated interest to do more searching on the subject.

Add a Topic
329
Roy (Bud) Taylor
Guest
Roy (Bud) Taylor
January 12, 2013 3:05 pm

In the summer of 2011 my wife and I visited her uncle in Emporium, PA who has been a successful factory rep for many years. He gave me a brouchure about Z-Corporation that he suggested I could use to make engineering prototypes parts. Several companies he repped had bought them and were making parts for engineers. He also suggested I invest in Z-Corp as a wave of the future. I promptly filled that broucure away in my desk drawer and forgot about it until I got a bunch of meetings from MF and others claiming this would be the death of Chinese manufacturing. When I went to the Z-Corp site, I found they were acquired by 3D-Systems (DDD). The price of DDD has been appreciating rapidly and could be the company hinted at by MF. I am now looking seriously at investing in DDD.

Add a Topic
2778
Johnny Colorado
Member
Johnny Colorado
March 20, 2013 6:02 pm

I went to a 3d public viewing in Denver. They had a few printers making little plastic toys. It was fun. Then I saw the mint of Poland issued a 3d coin. Very cool.
This printer was used. It may be worth jumping in now the stock has dropped a lot.

Add a Topic
1680
Add a Topic
5971
Bill
Guest
Bill
November 23, 2014 1:44 pm

What company in Santa Clarita were the Fools speaking of for the best 3-D printer manufacturer. Also some input what company might be best choice for the “razerblade” for these 3-D printers.

j
Guest
j
January 9, 2015 9:07 am

Auto cooking; you just pour all the raw vegetables in one end, hot meals on plates come out the other.

Get crackin’ please; there’s been something overlooked.