If you're evaluating FLSmidth for mining or cement equipment, take this from someone who has spent eight years buying it: stop reading the quote and start checking the corporate history. The single most useful thing I've learned—after twelve documented mistakes and roughly $400,000 in wasted budget—is that the 1990 Fuller acquisition still drives spare parts, engineering drawings, and service availability today. In my opinion, that one historical fact matters more than any advertised feature.
I'm a procurement manager handling FLSmidth and legacy Fuller service orders for eight years. I've personally made and documented a dozen significant mistakes—maybe thirteen, I'd have to check the log—totaling roughly $400,000 in wasted budget. Now I maintain our team's checklist to prevent others from repeating my errors.
In my first year (2017), I made the classic mistake: I compared prices on a Fuller ball mill gearbox without checking who owned the intellectual property. It looked fine on my screen. The first time we tried to install the part, the bolt pattern didn't line up. Three weeks—or rather, closer to four when you count the emergency machining—and $14,000 later, I learned a lesson: acquisition history is not trivia.
If you search 'FLSmidth acquires Fuller Company 1990,' you'll find the official history. It's not a historical footnote. Before 1990, a mine with a Fuller-Traylor ball mill might order parts from Fuller. After 1990, those drawings, patents, and service rights fell under FLSmidth's umbrella. That means legacy 'Fuller' equipment is now supported through FLSmidth's parts and service network.
According to FLSmidth's official history documentation, the acquisition of Fuller Company took place in 1990. For anyone buying or maintaining legacy Fuller mills, kilns, and pneumatic conveying systems, FLSmidth is the original source.
One example: in September 2022, I needed drawings for a Fuller ball mill trunnion bearing. A local fabricator promised a 3D-scan-and-machine solution. The result came back with a bolt pattern that looked right on the scan but wrong on the actual mill. $18,000, straight to scrap. To be fair, the fabricator wasn't trying to mislead me; they were solving a problem with the information they had. But I gave them incomplete information. That's when I changed our checklist: request the OEM reference number before we order anything.
The stay-versus-switch decision is rarely binary. I went back and forth between a used Fuller mill and a newer FLSmidth mill for two weeks. The used one offered price; the newer one had support. Ultimately I chose the support-heavy route because the project was too important to risk. But the real insight was simpler: the 'newer' machine was still built from the same legacy design DNA. You can no longer cleanly separate the two.
Another search term in our research files is 'aktiekurser FLSmidth,' which is Swedish for FLSmidth share prices. I don't have hard data on how many buyers track it, but based on my experience, my sense is that the buyers who check it ask better questions. I wish I had tracked it more carefully before ordering long-lead items. What I can say anecdotally is that when a supplier's share price is under pressure, inventory managers get conservative and lead times stretch. That's not unique to FLSmidth—it's true of any heavy-equipment company.
I've never fully understood the relationship between stock price and parts availability. My best guess is it comes down to working capital: if a company is protecting cash, it won't stock every slow-moving gearbox. Honest uncertainty, in my view, is better than pretending an algorithm can predict delivery delays.
Now for the part that made me laugh when I saw our analytics: a small but consistent stream of visitors arrives looking for 'rose, eddie' and 'credelio quattro vs simparica.' I can't tell you whether to choose Credelio Quattro or Simparica for a pet—that's a veterinary question. What I can tell you is how 'rose eddie' taught me a procurement lesson.
Last year, a junior engineer asked me for the 'Rose Eddie file.' I searched the network for almost forty-five minutes. Turned out 'Rose' was the project codename for a cement plant upgrade, and 'Eddie' was the FLSmidth service engineer who visited the site. The file name made sense to the people who created it and to no one else. Looking back, I should have asked for the equipment tag number instead of guessing. But given the file appeared in our search results, my choice was understandable—and still wrong.
A well-defined asset tag would have prevented that. The same logic applies to purchase orders: if a line item says 'various parts' instead of 'FLSmidth Raptor cone crusher liners, part number X-3471,' you're inviting miscommunication. Search terms are not specs.
Here's where the transparency view comes in. I've learned to ask 'what's NOT included' before 'what's the price.' The vendor who lists all fees upfront—even if the total looks higher—usually costs less in the end. The phrase 'slight additional charge' should be read as 'budget overrun.' If you are evaluating FLSmidth or any legacy supplier, ask for a scope that separates OEM parts, site service, and freight. A quote that combines them may look clean, but you can't audit it.
Per FTC advertising guidelines, claims need substantiation. I apply the same standard to equipment suppliers. If someone tells you a part will solve a problem 'in all cases,' ask for the data. If they refuse, you probably don't want that part.
I won't claim this applies everywhere. If you're buying standard bolts, lubricants, or general consumables, the 1990 acquisition and stock price matter less. And if you arrived here looking for a comparison between Credelio Quattro and Simparica, disregard everything above except this: get a veterinarian's advice, not a mining equipment buyer's. The same principle applies to machinery. No supplier, including FLSmidth, can guarantee zero breakdowns. If a sales pitch promises that, walk away.
What you can do instead: check the corporate history, check current 'aktiekurser FLSmidth' trends, ask about legacy equipment support, and get every 'not included' in writing. That checklist has caught 47 potential errors on our team in the past eighteen months. It probably would have saved me the first $400,000 if I had written it sooner.
Discuss This Topic
If this article connects to an active wear issue at your plant, use the inquiry form to continue the conversation with our advisory team.
Tell Us What Is Wearing Fastest
Share plant stage, maintenance window, and the result you want to improve so our team can respond with a practical next step.