| Account | Shares | Price | Value | % of acct | Cost/sh | Gain $ | Gain % | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 401K | 26 | $130.75 | $3,400 | 0.14% | $74.43 | $1,464 | +75.7% | — |
In short: Named only as a peer — with Barrick, one of the two that "have done a pretty good job in Nevada," one of his three best mining regions (with Western Australia and the Abitibi). No view on the stock.
43:42I think, I've said this publicly, I think if your strategy says I want to go to regions that have multi-generation opportunity of resources in the ground and have the political stability to let you operate for decades, probably the three best regions are Nevada, and Newmont and Barrick have done a pretty good job in Nevada, Australia, and in particular Western Australia, and we're in Australia, and we like Australia.
In short: The host's framing is the default retail move — "if you're going to be a generalist, you want gold, they just buy Newmont" — and that is precisely what Rule declines to endorse. Newmont sits inside the same 30-year capital-allocation ranking behind Agnico, and inside the same argument that the Carlin-trend premium is "unfounded, particularly unfounded given the returns on capital employed and returns on invested capital that Agnico has delivered relative to either Newmont or Barrick." No independent view on Newmont is given here.
1:01:31And I'm curious about the choice of Agnico, right? Because those tend to be the three. If you're going to be a generalist, you want gold, they just buy Newmont. — If you look at the capital allocation decisions among Barrick, Newmont, and Agnico over the last 30 years, first, second, and third all belong to Agnico.
In short: The base-case benchmark: "double and double again," a possible 5–7 bagger with a leg four. "I'm only looking at a multiple of Newmont to be a three-bagger [at] 7,000 at about a 25 multiple and it wouldn't shock me if it gets to a 30 or 35" in a leg-three mania.
The world's largest gold miner — his "base case" for how much even the safest miners can rise. At $7,000 gold, if investors pay about 25 times its free cash flow (the cash left after running and maintaining the mines), he gets a tripling; in a mania that multiple could reach 30–35, and smaller miners should do better still.
32:55So, I'm only looking at a multiple of Newmont to be a three-bagger 7,000 at about a 25 multiple and it wouldn't shock me if it gets to a 30 or 35 that I think those numbers are absolutely in play here depending if you get a mania in leg three. So, the leverage absolutely goes nuts in these miners.
In short: Owned, and the "harvesting" side of the show's opening comparison — a record $2.2bn of free cash flow in the quarter against $438m of sustaining capital. "Newmont has been consistently a leader over the years in my opinion along with Agnico, AEM, and so we own those two and they're I think the first and second largest holdings in GDX right now." He also names it as one of the value stocks money rotates into as the AI trade unwinds.
Newmont is the largest gold producer in the world, and in this interview it is the example of a miner "harvesting" rather than "building" — spending $438m to keep its existing mines running and generating a record $2.2bn of cash left over in a single quarter. Free cash flow is simply the money left after paying for everything needed to keep operating; it is what funds dividends, buybacks and debt repayment.
Feneck owns it, and his reason is unglamorous: consistency. Over the years he sees Newmont and Agnico Eagle as the two large producers that reliably do what they say, which is why they are his direct holdings while Barrick is not.
The second reason is where he expects money to go next. He is calling a rotation between now and March out of AI and momentum stocks and into value — and he names Newmont as exactly the kind of cheap, cash-generating business that receives that money.
8:12But Newmont has been consistently a leader over the years in my opinion along with Agnico, AEM, and so we own those two and they're I think the first and second largest holdings in GDX right now with Barrick being third. And so you want to own the sector, Jeremy, for this very reason, right? And if you just own Newmont versus Barrick, you're going to have two different experiences.
In short: "One of the best performing stocks in the S&P 500 — it just made new all-time highs this week," a sign the generalists are finally arriving and chasing the most liquid names. Last year's free cash flow was $7.3 billion, up more than 200%, with Q1 and Q2 both excellent and energy costs back under control.
Newmont is the world's largest gold miner. Stöferle uses it as proof the thesis is starting to work: it is one of the best-performing stocks in the entire S&P 500 and just hit a record high.
Why that matters to him is less about Newmont itself and more about who is buying. Big generalist funds — the ones that own everything and normally ignore gold — always start with the biggest, easiest-to-trade name in a sector. Newmont leading is the first footprint of that money arriving.
The substance behind the move: $7.3 billion of free cash flow last year (the actual spare cash left after running and building the mines), up more than 200%, with two strong quarters and energy costs back under control.
1:12:35However, if you time it right then obviously you have this gold on steroids, that beta to the price of gold. And I think Michelle, it's interesting that Newmont being one of the best performing stocks in the S&P 500. It just made new all-time highs this week, which is a sign that obviously the big money, the generalists, they chase the most liquid names.
In short: A single passing reference, and the only company named in the digest: "🚨 Key Founders+ Watchlist Update & Exclusive CEO Conversation — See the exciting name from our watchlist just landed a Newmont joint venture." Newmont is the counterparty, not the subject — the point is validation of an undisclosed Founders+ watchlist name by a major gold producer partnering with it. No view is expressed on Newmont itself.
In short: "It's trim time, in our view" — take gains, don't exit. The stance is given without preamble: "with this entity, the largest North American gold miner, we're coming to a different conclusion. For those who simply want to cut to the chase: it's trim time, in our view." The position's full history is disclosed rather than airbrushed: "candidly, NEM was an embarrassment for us early on, including announcing a 37% dividend cut in early 2024. That was soon after we positively wrote it up, partially because the pre-cut yield was higher than a 10-year Treasury and it also provided a hefty hedge against monetary debasement. This, along with soft earnings, caused its own debasement… it lost around 25% of its value in short order. Fortunately, we gave it a mild positive plug when it was on the ash heap." The thesis worked: "by August of 2025, it was breaking out… we focused on the series of positive earnings surprises it was (finally!) reporting. We even stuck our necks out and said we thought the EPS estimate of $5 for 2025 was low. We were dead-on with that one, as it ended up reporting almost $7 of EPS for the full year." The structural point stands too: "it was (and actually still is) the only gold miner in the S&P 500… that might give it an added boost once it became clear it was on an earnings roll, encouraging institutional investors to embrace the name. That has undoubtedly happened and been a contributing factor in its moonshot." What changes is price, not thesis: "perhaps reflecting its special status, NEM is back at its early 2025 peak whereas the senior gold miner ETF, GDX, remains about 10% below its high. But what concerns us the most is the straight up nature of the recent recovery run… a non-trivial retracement strikes us as highly probable. We'd also note its Price/Sales ratio looks a bit stretched." Conclusion: "we believe cashing in some of your gains on this one is a prudent move." A trim, not a sale — the sector view is unchanged ("almost all gold miners have all been on fire since 2024, and are again after a nasty correction earlier this year").
Newmont is the largest gold miner in North America and, unusually, the only gold miner in the S&P 500 index. That last detail is not trivia — it means index funds and big institutions that only buy S&P names can own gold-mining exposure through Newmont and essentially nowhere else.
Hay tells the whole history of this position, including the embarrassing part. Haymaker wrote it up positively, and shortly afterwards, in early 2024, Newmont cut its dividend by 37% — which broke one of the two reasons for owning it, since the pre-cut yield had been higher than a 10-year Treasury bond. Combined with weak earnings, the stock lost about a quarter of its value quickly. He credits himself only with a "mild positive plug when it was on the ash heap."
Then it worked. By August 2025 the stock was breaking out on a run of better-than-expected earnings, and Haymaker took the unusual step of saying publicly that Wall Street's $5 earnings-per-share estimate for 2025 was too low. Newmont delivered almost $7. The S&P-membership argument paid off too — once the earnings improved, institutions piled in, which he thinks contributed to what he calls the moonshot.
So why trim now? Nothing in the business has broken. Two things about the price have. First, a clean relative check: Newmont is back at its early-2025 peak while GDX, the fund that owns the big gold miners as a group, is still about 10% below its own high. One stock outrunning the sector it belongs to that far is a measurable sign of stretch, not just a feeling about the chart. Second, the recovery has been, in his word, "straight up" — a vertical move with no pauses, the shape that typically gives some ground back. He adds that the price-to-sales ratio, the same yardstick that says EOG and Diamondback are cheap, now "looks a bit stretched" for Newmont.
The instruction is therefore to bank some gains, not to leave: "cashing in some of your gains on this one is a prudent move." He remains constructive on gold miners generally — almost all of them have been on fire since 2024 and are running again after this year's correction. This is a call about how much of one stock you should be holding after a vertical run, not a change of mind about gold.
In short: Referenced, not a pick — listed with Rio Tinto and Freeport as an attendee of the White House mining press conference. No company view; the discussion is about a US mining base hollowed out for 50 years, with "not the bench depth… not the bench at all."
33:51— Exactly. Nixon. Yeah. So there was a White House press conference last week about mining, hard rock mining. The White House invited all these executives from the mining industry, some of the biggest mining companies in the US as well as the largest ones in the world Rio Tinto, Newmont, Freeport, etc., etc.
In short: Same conditional verdict as Barrick — the Fourmile resolution is the whole question: settle it and five years of depletion risk goes away, "if it doesn't they have a depletion challenge." Part of a sector where "none of them have been making sufficient sustaining capital investment."
Newmont sits on the same knife edge as Barrick, for the same reason. The Fourmile deposit in Nevada would, if brought into the shared pipeline, cover roughly five years of the depletion gap for both companies. Without it, both are short of proved ore relative to what they produce.
The wider context is the one Rick returns to repeatedly: none of the majors "have been making sufficient sustaining capital investment," so the industry as a whole has been running down its inventory. That is precisely why he expects an aggressive takeover market — companies that can't drill their way out have to buy their way out.
26:16If it doesn't they have a depletion challenge. — Yeah. Okay. All right. So, a couple other companies, Contango and Dolly, how are you viewing that recent, I think it was a merger, right? — Yeah. — I think it was an intelligent merger. I also thought it was instructive that Shawn Khunkhun, who I think did a great job shepherding Dolly over six or seven years, recognized two things in the market.
In short: The archetypal partner in the prospect-generator model rather than a rated name: "if you farm a project out to Newmont, you have 200, 250 geoscientists at Newmont that are working for you indirectly and you don't have to pay for them… Newmont pays for them. Which is truly spectacular." Also the specific third-party funder standing behind Headwater Gold's Nevada ground.
39:43One of the best teams of explorationists active in the US. And the Headwaters guys actually took the EMX portfolio and built a new company around it so that they could focus on it. As you point out, their exploration ground is prime hunting ground for Newmont. And so, their key third-party funding partner is in fact Newmont.
In short: Buy, $158 target (+52.2% from $103.79) — the mega-cap of the book ($111.9B) still at 0.8× P/NAV and 12.1× 2026E P/E, discounting only $3,011 gold levered.
Newmont is the world's largest gold miner — a $112 billion company — and normally size like that trades at a premium. On Singh's sheet it doesn't: 0.8 times asset value, 12 times earnings, and a price that implies gold at only about $3,000/oz when it trades far higher. His $158 target is 52% above the market — unusual upside for a mega-cap, which is exactly why it stands out.
In short: The lone gold miner left in the S&P 500 — quality, like Agnico/Barrick: buys back stock, doesn't dilute shareholders, the opposite of the bad junior managers.
Newmont is the only gold miner left in the entire S&P 500 — a fact he finds crazy given the gold bull case. He groups it with Agnico and Barrick as the "quality" miners: they generate cash, buy back stock and don't dilute shareholders, the opposite of the sketchy junior miners that constantly issue new shares.
25:45To me, that's a beautiful risk-reward situation. And remember, in the 80s, there were a lot more companies in the metal space that were in the S&P 500. Right now, we have one gold miner in the S&P 500. Newmont. Newmont. Isn't that crazy? You got to come to Canada. Yeah. Or Australia. I mean, we're going to have, over the next five years, Or Australia.
In short: Ranks it a 5 (up from a 6 on strong quarters + a lower share price); expects to raise it further if gold stays soft and the quarters stay good. The chart doesn't reflect internal improvement, the tier-two-mine sell-off, the best pipeline ever, or the "outside possibility" of a North-American combination with Barrick.
Newmont is the biggest gold miner, and Rule recently nudged it up from a 6 to a 5 because it's been posting strong quarterly results while its stock fell — a better company at a cheaper price. He thinks the share price doesn't yet credit the cleanup underway: selling off lower-tier mines, the best development pipeline it's ever had, and an "outside possibility" of combining its North American assets with Barrick's. If gold stays soft and the good quarters continue, he expects to raise the grade further.
7:49So understand that these rankings are snapshots in time. They are not meant to be timeless. If you're listening to this interview 6 months from now, assume that the ranking will have changed as a consequence of that. Now, let's get back to the process. Newmont, as a consequence of delivering some very, very good quarters and experiencing lower share prices, has moved up from a six to a five.
In short: The only gold miner in the S&P 500, so the sector gets no passive-flow benefit; expects several hard-asset names added to the index over the next 2–3 years.
Newmont is the largest gold miner — and notably the only gold miner in the S&P 500. His point is structural: because it's the lone gold name in the index, the whole sector gets none of the automatic buying that index funds funnel into S&P members. He expects several hard-asset companies to be added to the index over the next 2–3 years, which would change that.
24:53passive themes and I know you know this new mining nam is the only gold miner in the S&P 500. So it never gets the benefit the sector at all from passive flows. I want to move from um gold to uranium and I I I think you like uranium still here at this point. I know you've been you pushed this NUKZ ETF uh which is all things nuclear uh last year was around 50.
In short: The required counterparty to the Barrick endgame — combine the two firms' Nevada operations into one pure-play Nevada gold company (whether via merger, buyout or JV).
Newmont is the other big gold miner needed to complete his Barrick endgame. The two companies already share Nevada operations, and he wants them combined into one pure-play Nevada gold champion — whether through a merger, a buyout, or a joint venture. It's named as the necessary dance partner, not as a standalone pick.
36:00Did they do everything you thought that they should? Yeah, it played out pretty much exactly as I thought, but I think there's one more step in this process where they have to figure out a way to merge their Nevada gold mines operations with Newmont's, and create one company, which will be a pure-play Nevada-based uh champion for for for the gold industry.
In short: Cited as the typical "big global miner" most people buy for gold exposure — used to contrast operating miners (which lagged the metal over the cycle on costs, overruns and permitting) with the higher-returning royalty model.
Newmont is the giant, household-name gold miner — the kind of stock most people buy when they want gold exposure. Prins isn't rating it; she uses it as the "normal" way of investing in gold to contrast against royalty companies. Her data shows that actual mining companies, with all their cost overruns, permitting headaches and constant need to find new ore, actually lagged the price of gold over the long run — which is exactly why she prefers the royalty approach.
In short: "A chicken way to play a continuing miner rally" via a tarnished blue-chip. Fred & David expect a stronger Q4 after "a bitterly disappointing Q3" (bottomed ~$37, now ~$43). But "a serial disappointer" with expectations "extremely low... for good reason," and a Wall Street analyst already anticipating "another stinker." Net cautious/speculative.
Newmont is the world's biggest gold miner — a blue-chip, but a "tarnished" one. Hay calls owning it "a chicken way to play" a continued miner rally: it's safer and more liquid than the small miners, and both he and Fred Hickey think it could surprise with better Q4 profits after a bad Q3 (the stock bottomed near $37 and is now about $43).
But he's cautious, not enthusiastic: Newmont is "a serial disappointer" that keeps missing, expectations are rock-bottom "for good reason," and a Wall Street analyst is already bracing for "another stinker." So it's a low-conviction, speculative way to get gold-miner exposure — hence Neutral rather than a clear buy.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.