Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Morningstar and Yahoo Finance offer links to "major holders" including funds. However, I'd guess a fund may have at most a low single-digit % in one of the stocks, which wouldn't be a fund-moving amount.
Reply to @Maurice: 3-D printing has been around for several years. I remember Jay Leno showing off his classic cars on TV maybe 5-6 years ago and explaining how much easier and cheaper it had become to obtain replacement parts (a door handle for example) for antique autos using a 3-D printer than in the old days when it took a skilled machinist many hours of labor to make one from blue-prints.
I guess the big difference is that these printers have now become affordable for the averge person. Bloomberg was demonstrating a 3-D setup other evening that can be purchased for around $300. Couple of reporters were having their heads "scanned" so that a realistic looking plastic head could be printed. (Didn't stay up long enough to view the outcome.) Nonsense of sorts I suppose. However, your point about how technology tends to evolve in big leaps and spurts - leaving earlier state-of-the-art stuff in the dust - is well taken.
And Yep - The "downstream" stuff you mention is endless. Imagine Amazon sending a new set of dinnerware directly to your 3-D printer - within minutes of being ordered. Or - perhaps sending larger more complicated items to printers at a distribution center close to where you live. Not good for UPS I'd think. Come to think ... not good for Amazon either, as it opens the door for many smaller competitors without their impressive infrastructure. The world turns over every 24 hours.
Reply to @hank: 3D printing is OK for solid objects that can be manufactured from essentially plastic and may be a few other materials. At this stage. It is very expensive to manufacture anything beyond prototypes or samples or one of rare items that cost is not a major factor. I doubt it will replace conventional products and manufacturing any time soon. I will be watching but I don't think initial hype is worthy of investment. I am sure out of many there will be some winners but it is hard to determine which ones in advance.
Good points made so far. My personal feeling is like Investor's in that I don't believe 3-D printing will ever become main stream any more than solar collectors will dominate energy production.
As for Maurice's point look at the foreseeable future for once mighty Dell. Things change. Tablets are the rage now and maybe soon, glasses or watches.
Comments
I guess the big difference is that these printers have now become affordable for the averge person. Bloomberg was demonstrating a 3-D setup other evening that can be purchased for around $300. Couple of reporters were having their heads "scanned" so that a realistic looking plastic head could be printed. (Didn't stay up long enough to view the outcome.) Nonsense of sorts I suppose. However, your point about how technology tends to evolve in big leaps and spurts - leaving earlier state-of-the-art stuff in the dust - is well taken.
And Yep - The "downstream" stuff you mention is endless. Imagine Amazon sending a new set of dinnerware directly to your 3-D printer - within minutes of being ordered. Or - perhaps sending larger more complicated items to printers at a distribution center close to where you live. Not good for UPS I'd think. Come to think ... not good for Amazon either, as it opens the door for many smaller competitors without their impressive infrastructure. The world turns over every 24 hours.
That's all. Time to go crank up the 8-track.
As for Maurice's point look at the foreseeable future for once mighty Dell. Things change. Tablets are the rage now and maybe soon, glasses or watches.
http://www.gemalto.com/ego/
(disclosure: I own Gemalto.)
Try this link
http://www.3dprinterstocks.com/
rono