On January 20, 2010, an article containing an extensive analytical analysis on ARC, and commentary about ARC, the reprographics industry, and the A/E/C Industry, was posted on the following web-site:
http://pleaseactaccordingly.com/
If you are reprographer and/or an investor who follows ARC, this article is definitely worth reading (as are the archived posts on that site about ARC.) The articles posted on that site (about ARC and about other companies "Please-Act-Accordingly" covers) are extensive, well-written and easy to understand.
I don't necessarily agree with the opinions expressed in the most recent article - for one, I don't see any positive news yet that would lend one to reasonably conclude that the reprographics industry has yet bottomed out - but I do feel that it is always a good idea to consider as many opinions as possible, when trying to form your own opinion as to how things are going.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Joel
ReplyDeleteI am an individual investor (student) that has also become interested in ARC stock. Your blog has been wonderful in helping me get acquainted with the industry. My chief concern with the stock is the viability of the business model. Regarding the reprography shops that ARC has acquired, it seems that the shops have been built to success by the hustle of an enterprising manager such as yourself. Once that manager sells his shop to ARC and leaves to either retire or start another shop is ARC really left with that much value?
In addition, I agree with you that digital document management and BIM are hugely important technologies to the future of the industry. However, what is stopping a dominant software developer like Adobe from developing an Adobe Architect application that competes with ARC's? As long as ARC can compete with ReproMax and other reprography shops they should be fine but it's hard to see what will stop bigtime software developers from taking notice as the industry shifts from a printing industry to an application development industry.
Finally, you mentioned ARC's profitability advantages over offset printers like CGX, but CGX would seem to have higher barriers to entry ($20 million digital printers). From reading your materials it doesn't seem like ARC's business model is quite as defensible.
Anyway those are my two cents. I'd be very interested in any thoughts you had. Thanks again for the blog!