Forum Topics MIN MIN Broker Views

Pinned straw:

Added 2 months ago

Well Mr Market seemed to like the gas sale news (MIN up 15%+ at the moment) - FWIW here's what some of the brokers had to say... (after the announcements but before the11AM call)

Macquarie: Neutral 12m PT $38

1QFY25: A$1.1b gas sale; mixed Fe; Li sales beat but prices miss

What's new

• MIN's 1QFY25 was outshone by the A$1.1b gas sale (A$0.8b upfront / A$0.3b contingent). The result itself was mixed for Fe; sales/production/price were -3%/+9%/-2% miss/beat/miss as Onslow ramps up. Li sales (+16%) and production (+3%) were a beat on Mt Marion production/sales but realised prices were an 11% miss

Why it matters

  • A$0.8b gas sale with A$0.3b contingent upside: MIN announced an A$1.1b sale of its gas discoveries (EP368/426) which includes an upfront A$804m consideration and A$327m consideration contingent on meeting certain resource definition thresholds. The sale includes its Moriary Deep, Lockyer Gas and Erregulla Oil discoveries, on which the contingent consideration applies. MIN will retain a 50% interest in an Exploration JV in its remaining Perth Basin and Carnarvan Basin permits and will remain operator. MQe were at A$804m for a 100% sale of the entire basin, ex contingent upside
  • Fe sales miss, production beat, price miss: MIN iron-ore sales at 4.5Mt (attributable) missed by 3%, driven by misses at the Yilgarn (-8%) and Onslow (-10%) hubs, offset by the Pilbara Hub beat (+3%). Attributable production of 5.1Mt beat (+9%) driven by a 23%/6%/6% beats at Onslow/Pilbara/Yilgarn. Realised pricing was broadly in line (-2% in AUD terms). FY25 guidance reiterated for production and costs
  • Li sales & production beat, price miss: Spodumene sales at 178kt were a 16% beat (+16%) on a Mt Marion beat (+48%, 89kt). Wodgina missed (-16%, 46kt) whilst Bald Hill beat (+9%, 43kt). Production beat (+3%), with Mt Marion (+14%) offsetting a Wodgina 6% miss; Bald Hill was in line. Realised prices missed (-11%) with the mix of Mt Marion higher. FY25 cost and production guidance reiterated


RBC: Outperform PT $63

Our View: Most of the reported operational metrics for 1Q were broadly in line (Exhibit 1). FY25 volume and cost guidance maintained for all operations. Onslow continues to ramp-up, MIN has reiterated that Onslow remains on track to reach its nameplate 35Mtpa run rate from June 2025 and it was cashflow positive in October (inclusive of Mining Services). We continue to assume a delay (1Q26). No real surprises in 1Q with the lithium assets; however, cost reduction remain the focus, which has resulted in the underground development at Mt Marion being deferred (we didn't have this in our base case). Lithium production and unit costs (lower) are expected to be 2H weighted, which is what we model. Finally, on energy, MIN has entered into a transaction with Hancock on the Perth and Carnarvon basin for total consideration of up to $1.1bn (including upfront consideration of $804m). We value the asset at A$600m, so a positive outcome in our view. No update on the Board investigation, still expected 4 Nov


Morgan Stanley: Overweight PT $56

1QFY25: Strong Qtr + Gas Sale

Gas sale ends BS concerns (assuming Onslow works). Asset sale price is ~2x our base valuation: A$575mn (MIN SOTP:A$72.55/sh). Strong Qtr for IO achieved prices for old assets + Onslow prices beat MSe/cons 10/20% (forecast check). Wodgina weaker on transitional ore. MIN is our most preferred OW

Key Takeaways

  • Gas asset sale to Hancock: Cash: A$804m; Contingents: A$327m, FY25/26 gearing 52%/42% to 46%/31% & ND/EBITDA 5.7/1.5x to 4.7x/1x. BS overhang removed
  • IO prices +6%/+10% vs MSe/cons (achieved 81% vs. avg. actual of 85.9%). IO Prodn +8%/0% vs MSe/Cons. Shipments -3%/-5% vs MSe/Cons
  • Onslow realized price US$88/dmt, +10/+19% v MSe/cons (achieved 81% vs. avg. actual 85.9%). Prodn +34%/+4% v MSe/Cons. Shipments -2%/-16% vs. MSe/Cons
  • Mt Marion prodn 133.3kt, +11.1%/+14.4% v. MSe/Cons. Shipments +45.4% v MSe/Cons. Price A$808.8/t, +7%/-11% v MSe/Cons. Low grade prod to improve 2H
  • Wodgina prod -11%/-15% v MSe/Cons. Shipments -20%/-23% v MSe/Cons. Greater transitional ore encountered, this has eased & mine back to plan. Prod 2H weighted


DISC: Held in RL & SM

Chagsy
Added a month ago

Ask the analyst: Why has MinRes fallen so far?

Mineral Resources shares are down almost 50% year to date. Mark Taylor weighs in on some of the reasons why.

Joseph Taylor

Welcome to the next edition of Ask the analyst, where we put your questions about ASX stocks under our coverage to our equity research team. If you have a question, please send it to [email protected] and we may feature it in a future article.

Today’s question

Today’s question comes from Greg C, a Morningstar reader and Mineral Resources (ASX: MIN) shareholder from Adelaide.

Greg’s email said the following:

“I have owned MinRes for a long time and have been through a few sell-offs. I’m not enjoying this one, though! The stock is down almost 50% this year and it has been in the headlines a lot too. Any thoughts on the main causes of the sell-off?”

For those of you less familiar with MinRes than Greg will be by this point, let’s start with a very quick overview of how it makes money.

How does MinRes make money?

MinRes is home to two very different business segments: mining services and mining.

Our MinRes analyst Mark Taylor still considers the company’s traditional mining services business to be its core. For a few years, though, earnings from these operations have played second fiddle to those from iron ore and lithium mining.

The split in 2024 was roughly 40% mining services, where MinRes owns and operates crushing and screening facilities located at its own and other companies’ mines – and 60% from mining iron ore and lithium.


Iron ore has traditionally made up most of this, but the mix varies because of changes in commodity prices and production levels. In 2022, iron ore was 78% of revenue, in 2023 it was 55% and in 2024 it was 68%.

“Now that MinRes’s Onslow iron ore project has come online, I expect iron ore to be 80% of the mining segment’s revenue in 2025” says Taylor. “In 2026, I think that will fall back to two-thirds as we forecast that lithium prices can recover a bit”.

Why have MinRes shares been so weak this year?

The relative earnings contribution and different nature of these two segments account for much of what has been driving MinRes’s share price movements.

Revenue and profits from MinRes’s mining services business are tied to production levels at the company and its clients’ mines. These have some potential to vary with commodity prices, but this business has generally been steadier and more predictable than the mining segment. It has long contracts at mines that are less impacted by downcycles, and its clients have little reason to find a new supplier.

By contrast, profits in MinRes’s mining segment are highly leveraged to commodity prices. All the more because most of the mines it owns are not particularly low-cost operations. This is especially true for their iron ore mines, which sit higher on the cost curve than many peers due their low-grade ore.


Onslow’s long-life and lower cost profile will help in this regard, but MinRes is still highly reliant on favourable iron ore prices. MinRes’s lithium operations are slightly better placed but still have higher all-in costs than several assets including IGO and Albemarle’s Greenbushes mine.

Add this together and you get a company that has a bigger, growing and more leveraged portion of its earnings coming from mining. Hence MinRes generally trading far more like a mining pureplay as opposed to a mining services company that also owns mines.

The fall in lithium prices has been especially hard on MinRes shares in recent years. Iron ore prices coming off from 140 USD at the start of 2024 to around 100 USD per ton hasn’t helped either.

The Ellison effect

Most of the weakness in MinRes shares this year, then, can be accounted for by commodity prices. But more recently they have also been hit by uncertainty over the future role of its founder Chris Ellison.

Allegations of tax dodging and personal use of company funds have dogged Ellison this year and ultimately led to an announcement that he will leave MinRes within 18 months.

MinRes has never been run conventionally. So much so that Taylor admits to sometimes wondering why Ellison took it public at all. Early investors are glad he did though. The shares are up over 30x since IPO.

A lot of this return has been fueled by leftfield bets that others wouldn’t have made. And that, without Ellison’s huge ownership stake, might not have made it past shareholders in a “more normal” situation.

There is potentially some concern that Ellison’s departure and the influx of more conventional management could diminish what Taylor calls MinRes’s “phenomenal ability to pull rabbits out of hats”.

For now, though, Ellison maintains his huge ownership stake and could retain an outsized say in how the company goes about its business.

Too much debt?

On the topic of strategy, MinRes’s latest update showed a renewed focus on cutting operating costs and selling assets to raise cash.

The company confirmed that the $1.3 billion partial sale of the toll-road accessing Onslow is now complete and that Hancock Prospecting has agreed to pay $1.1 million for two oil and gas exploration permits and 50% of MinRes’s remaining petroleum assets.

The latter deal brought in more cash than Taylor had expected. And while the proceeds will make a dent in the company’s debt pile, Taylor still thinks that MinRes’s balance sheet looks overstretched at a predicted 4.0x adjusted operating profit.

While the company’s elevated level of debt is relatively new (it has often operated with little or no net debt), its strategy of developing resource operations with the aim of eventually selling down their stake and holding onto the processing rights is not. Can more asset sales be expected, then?

Taylor definitely wouldn’t rule it out. Apart from the higher quality Onslow mine, though, MinRes could find it hard find a buyer for its low-grade, higher cost iron assets. Especially if iron ore prices dip closer to our medium-term forecast of USD 90 per ton.

Plenty of value but lots of uncertainty

Our Fair Value estimate for MinRes is $64 per share or almost 70% higher than current share price levels of around $38. Mark Taylor is keen to remind investors, however, that his valuation is accompanied by an Uncertainty rating of High. This means investors should seek a significant margin of safety.

Taylor’s Fair Value estimate is split roughly even between the mining and mining services segments. Over the medium term, he expects that lithium pricing headwinds will abate and that Onslow’s lower cost iron-ore could provide a further boost to the mining segment’s profit margins.

Over the long-term, our assumption is that China’s robust demand for iron-ore moderates as its economy matures and legislators focus more on consumer spending than infrastructure investments. If this is compounded by the supply increases that we expect in coming years, iron ore prices could fall substantially below the levels seen in recent years.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that the lithium market is still in its infancy and that new mines can still move the supply/demand picture quite significantly. Until the market matures in this respect, prices could continue to be volatile and bring large swings in MinRes’s earnings. In Taylor’s view, this makes it all the more crucial to be wary of its highly leveraged balance sheet.

Mineral Resources

  • Economic moat: None
  • Fair Value estimate: $64 per share
  • Uncertainty: High
  • Star rating:★★★★


13

Solvetheriddle
Added a month ago

why has MIN fallen so far? --this punter must have been living under a rock so far this year! it takes all kinds

13