@thunderhead

The money from ALU can't come soon enough. That's why I haven't bought in Strawman. No funds right now here

I'm waiting on 1/2 of my funds too. Sold half before EOFY at $67.

@edgescape - I recently bought back in - in one portfolio - and added - in another - at around $60/share, which I thought was reasonably priced for MIN, even though they did get down towards the low $50s soon after. They do tend to trend well, both up and down, once they get going, so I reckon there's a better than even chance they'll go lower again in their next big downtrend - maybe not to $50, but maybe down to $60 next time; They have plenty of Bears that don't like them, especially among the brokers where Chris Ellison tends to attack them personally - and as a group - by suggesting on one occasion that they were lazy and expected him to do their work for them - in response to some questions, and that some of the "rubbish" that they had been writing in reports and client notes was sloppy, unprofessional, and just wrong. And he had a blunt message for MinRes balance sheet critics recently as well - see here: Chris Ellison's Message to Balance Sheet Critics | Daily Mining Show (youtube.com)

And here: MIN ASX: Mineral Resources founder Chris Ellison slams critics over balance sheet (afr.com) “Not so much investors, but there are a few cowboys out there who throw a bit of shit at me and every now and then I call them out.”

“We have so many friggin’ levers we can pull.”

“The pressure I’m under at the moment with everyone whining and bitching, [I’m] going to go out and sell half of it [the haul road] just to put the money in the bank and go like ‘f--- you’,” he told analysts.

There are plenty of analysts who take some of that sh!t personally and are therefore more than happy to leave MinRes as a "sell" and just keeping finding reasons to justify that position. Even the analysts who are bullish on MinRes tend to only value certain divisions of the company and leave other parts in the "too hard basket".

@mikebrisy - I think if you try to value MinRes just on current production, or even on future production from current assets, they can look expensive at times, however their track record is of innovation and deal-making, so they buy distressed assets at bargain/fire-sale prices, sell assets at commodity high points, usually tend to get the better of much larger global players (like Albemarle), and always have a number of irons in the fire. It's hard to predict exactly what Chris will do next with MinRes because he occasionally admits he doesn't know himself - exactly. But he knows a good move to make when he sees it, and up until recently he has had the balance sheet and the control to make pretty much any move he wanted to make. More lately he has been getting some push-back on high debt levels, and I reckon the push-back that bothers him most is the push-back from the banks, because nobody else would really matter to him. He's just pissed that constant highlighting of MinRes' high debt levels by journos and analysts was fuelling the banks becoming more unsettled about it. Which would have pleased some analysts no doubt! And so, Chris is divesting some non-core assets to tidy up the balance sheet and get the [insert descriptor here - plural] off his back.

I don't think MinRes often looks like a slam-dunk investment decision to anybody coming across them fresh. It's more if you've followed the company for a while (like a decade or more) and seen what they are capable of - and experienced some of those TSRs.

They have a core mining services division that mostly does iron ore crushing, loading and hauling, with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure associated with that, including earthmoving equipment, crushing plants (including a "graveyard" of old decommisioned and abandoned crushing plants and parts that MinRes has accumulated from various failed miners and minesites, often alongside site rehabilitation contracts), trucks, trains, port infrastructure and ships. Around that mining services business, where MinRes own most of the plants and equipment that they use within those contracts, MinRes have a mining business, that has mostly focussed on iron ore, and occasionally ventures in and out of other assets, more recently lithium. They are also building an energy business (oil and gas, with a strong focus on natural gas). They also have a trading business, which involves buying stakes in other companies - most recently in lithium companies, and then selling them later, usually at a profit (but not always, you can't win on every trade), and they also trade assets, which can take a few years to play out in many cases. And they have a few other projects on the go, but most of those have not progressed to a stage where they are considered material to the company's valuation now.

In summary, I'm looking at their track record and that, short of a sudden health emergency, I don't think Chris is going anywhere else, any time soon, and so I'm backing the man and the company to continue to deliver for shareholders. Hard to translate that into a spreadsheet, but I can put it into a written investment thesis, and that's good enough for me.

Thanks for all the thoughts. I think it is clear many misunderstand what MinRes is about and that's why I think the analysts and perhaps traders are getting it wrong. In short, MinRes is taking a big picture view of mining, and looking at the pieces that are missing in their business and what needs to be done to fill the gap. A bit like getting pieces sorted on a jigsaw puzzle.

That strategy does come with some risk as everything needs to be acquired at the right price with the right resources. So I guess that is something to be aware of and requires a deeper understanding.

Think the fall in iron ore overnight, the negativity towards lithium and the bad article in the australian about the board today (loss of female personnel to fortescue) are all weighing.

The debt also getting attention - not as bad but almost like the fortescue issue a decade ago.

@Mujo I didnt see the Article in the Australian.

Thanks for bringing that to the table

It was a bit of a hit piece but not great PR - as a proponent of flexible work where sensible a policy like that would grate on me.

MinRes losing its best to Fortescue; iCare – but does its board?

It was in May last year that Chris Ellison, the billionaire founder of Mineral Resources, made a bold and unhelpful declaration – that hybrid-work arrangements (working from home) had no place at the mining company.

“If you want to work from home, you don’t work here,” Ellison sniped.

This clumsy, boneheaded remark, uttered in the midst of a cultural audit at the company, is typical of a proud oaf like Ellison.

He wouldn’t have the slightest clue that it’s the women of MinRes, far more than the men, who rely so heavily on flexible working arrangements – and it’s women, strangely, who he’s still so eager to attract to his workforce.

MinRes has had a longstanding problem with women. Its most senior have departed and its leadership team is stacked with Chris’s and Marks and Mikes and Darrens.

There are six chief executives in the upper levels of the executive, all men. There’s not even a pretence of diversity, a feat in itself.

The place is a giant, heaving man-cave, a boys club stinking of chauvinism and Lynx Africa.

One of the most senior women to work with Ellison was lawyer Bronwyn Grieve. She arrived in August 2022 as chief people officer and had been tasked with revamping culture at the mining company. In other words, it was her job to make the place more amenable – or just slightly less repellent – to women. Blocked at every turn, she quit within a year.

So did executive general manager Shelley Robertson, who quit MinRes in March 2023. Grieve and Robertson have since ended up at Fortescue, as Margin Call has learned, both now occupying seats on Andrew Forrest’s executive.

Robertson was promoted this month to chief operating officer and Grieve is Fortescue’s global sustainability and external affairs lead.

Not to mention the profusion of women elsewhere at MinRes who have walked out over some shabby treatment. Tania Champion, MinRes’s principal tenement adviser, started at Fortescue two months ago as the principal of approval planning. Courtney Kelley, MinRes’s in-house counsel, ended her two years at the company at the same time, according to LinkedIn.

Meanwhile, Ellison, a year on from his outright dismissal of flexible work, is back to making more bold pronouncements – this time about his commitment to hiring more women. Here he is at a Macquarie Australia conference in May talking about his vision for a “safer work environment” for women.

“I’m building a daycare centre so, ladies, if you want to come and work for me, 20 bucks a day for your kids, we’re going to be able to accommodate about 140 kids, so all our workforce.” This wasn’t satire. Nor was the hiring of company “ambassador” Julie Bishop to star in a video spruiking the miner as modern and female friendly.

Oh, if only she knew that the women who get anywhere near the MinRes leadership are out of that place faster than a Manhattan rat in a kitchen.

Ellison’s problem isn’t just hiring women, it’s keeping them – and losing the best of them to Fortescue.

@Mujo Oh cheers

Wow! Not pulling any punches.

Is that from the AFR?

In any case, although it reads like a hit piece, it doesn't bode well at all. Something for Ellison and co. to address pronto.

I’ve got MIN on my buy watchlist but I haven’t pulled the trigger. What worries me most about MIN is the reversal in the ROE since 2020. I’ve been burnt before with this scenario.

For several years up until 2020 the ROE continued to improve and it became a high quality business. Since 2020 ROE has declined to 15% and net debt on equity has grown to 80%. Return on capital was 10% last year. At the current share price PB is 2.7 x book value.

According to the analyst forecasts ROE will drop below 10% over the next 2 years before returning to +20%. If ROE does get back to +20% I think the share value will appreciate quickly, but this could take some time. There could be a +16% ROI over the next few years if ROE returns to +20% and that feasible.

I’ve only looked at the ROE here and there could be a lot going on under the bonnet that explains why?

Still watching!

@Rick Excellent point

Not from the AFR but from The Australian. Column is appropriately named "Margin Call"

Murdoch sometimes does have a tendency to take statements out of context to generate a few eyeballs.

Looks like the column may have achieved its objective with perhaps a few getting margin called on the price moves today?