Filing Flows › Companies › Barrick Mining › Analysis traps
Barrick Mining (B): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q2 2025, to Jun 30, 2025, filed Aug 11, 2025; rules v1.1
Barrick Mining (B): 1 rule of 10 triggered on the filings to Jun 30, 2025: low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued. 1 to review; 6 with insufficient data; 2 not applicable. Each is a question to verify, with the normal explanation that would produce the same figures.
Check these first
Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Triggered · severity high · confidence medium
The shares trade at 9.4× this year's net income of $7.2B, but that profit is at a high: the median of the last eight fiscal years is $785M, on which the same market value is 86.1×. A low multiple of peak profit is not a low multiple of normal profit.
Innocent reading: The business has changed for good (a merger, a new line, a pricing regime) and the old years are not its normal.
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is 53.41 a share (price 40.34); 87% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving revenue growth (each year) by ±5 pts alone takes it from 42.89 to 65.81; across every method the research ran the range is -45 to 473. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
Innocent reading: A stable, mature business with a narrow range of outcomes, where the point value is a fair summary.
Every rule
A01 FCF growth = the business improved Insufficient data
no working-capital items in the cash bridge for both years
A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Insufficient data
fewer than two fiscal years of stock compensation and share counts on file
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Insufficient data
fewer than five quarters with receivables and revenue on file (a year-over-year comparison needs five)
B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit Insufficient data
no reconciliation table read from the releases yet and fewer than three quarters with both an adjusted and a GAAP EPS
C02 Low net debt = no refinancing risk Insufficient data
no debt figure could be read from the balance sheet (the filing may tag it in other lines)
D03 EPS growth = profit growth Insufficient data
no quarter with EPS, net income and diluted shares for both this year and last
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Triggered severity high · confidence medium
The shares trade at 9.4× this year's net income of $7.2B, but that profit is at a high: the median of the last eight fiscal years is $785M, on which the same market value is 86.1×. A low multiple of peak profit is not a low multiple of normal profit.
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $67.6B |
| net income ttm | $7.2B |
| pe ttm | 9.40 |
| net income median fy | $785M |
| pe mid cycle | 86.10 |
| net income peak fy | $3.3B |
| years | FY2006 / 0.0; FY2007 / 1119.0; FY2008 / 785.0; FY2009 / -4274.0; FY2009 / -4274.0; FY2010 / 3274.0 |
| down years in window | 3 |
P/E on the trailing twelve months' net income against the P/E on the median net income of the last eight fiscal years (a mid-cycle stand-in); 'at a peak' = this year's profit at or above 90% of the best year and at least 1.3× the median
Source: Q2 2025 (net income, trailing twelve months)
What would explain it innocently
- The business has changed for good (a merger, a new line, a pricing regime) and the old years are not its normal
- The market is right that profit will fall, and the price already says so
- Capacity has left the industry, so the cycle's trough is higher than before
What to look for in the filing
- Where the industry's prices and volumes stand against their own history
- Capacity on order across the industry
- Management's view of the cycle in the MD&A
What would show the trap does not apply
- Profit holds at this level through the next two years (the eight-year peak was a new base, not a top)
- The industry's capacity and prices stay where they are rather than reverting
Look again: next filing.
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 53.41 a share (price 40.34); 87% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving revenue growth (each year) by ±5 pts alone takes it from 42.89 to 65.81; across every method the research ran the range is -45 to 473. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 53.41 |
| price | 40.34 |
| terminal value share | +86.8% |
| swing by input | Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 42.89 / 65.81; WACC / ±1 pt / 44.38 / 65.94; Operating margin / ±3 pts / 46.55 / 60.27; Tax rate / ±5 pts / 49.3 / 57.51 |
| range all methods | -44.62; 473.38 |
the DCF's point value against the share of it that is the terminal value and the value at each input moved by one step (growth ±5 pts, WACC ±1 pt, margin ±3 pts …); the range across every method the research ran
Source: 2026-11-08 (valuation research)
What would explain it innocently
- A stable, mature business with a narrow range of outcomes, where the point value is a fair summary
- The inputs that matter most are themselves well known (a regulated return, a long contract)
What to look for in the filing
- Which input you believe differs from the research's and why
- What the price implies for growth (the reverse DCF on the fair-value page)
What would show the trap does not apply
- The DCF's value is robust to the terminal growth and discount rate (the range's low end is still above the price)
- The company's cash flows over the next three years track the DCF's early years
Look again: next filing.
J06 A bank's low P/E and high profit = safe Not applicable
not a bank
J08 A REIT's low net income = the dividend is unsafe Not applicable
not a REIT
What the statuses mean
Triggered: the filings show the pattern; read the normal explanations and the missing evidence before concluding anything. To review: one quarter or a weak signal; a reader's judgement, not a pattern. Not triggered: the pattern is absent on these figures. Insufficient data: the filings read so far do not hold what the rule needs; this is not a clean bill. Not applicable: the rule is not meant for this kind of company (a bank's working capital, a loss-making quarter's EPS growth). Out of date: the latest filing is more than fifteen months old.
Severity is what the pattern could mean for cash, value or solvency; confidence is how reliable the inputs and the reading are. The two are kept apart.
Record a view
A reader's judgement, grounds, what would change it and the next review; kept in the browser (needs JavaScript).
Every rule and the companies it triggers on → Barrick Mining: cash flow →
Each rule reads the company's own filings by a fixed formula and says what would explain the same figures innocently. A triggered rule is a question to verify, not a finding of manipulation, and not a view on the stock. Missing data is shown as missing, never as clear. Not investment advice.