Fortuna Mining Corp. Just Missed EPS By 17%: Here's What Analysts Think Will Happen Next
Shareholders might have noticed that Fortuna Mining Corp. (TSE:FVI) filed its first-quarter result this time last week. The early response was not positive, with shares down 3.1% to CA$7.93 in the past week. It was not a great result overall. While revenues of US$290m were in line with analyst predictions, earnings were less than expected, missing statutory estimates by 17% to hit US$0.20 per share. The analysts typically update their forecasts at each earnings report, and we can judge from their estimates whether their view of the company has changed or if there are any new concerns to be aware of. So we gathered the latest post-earnings forecasts to see what estimates suggest is in store for next year.
This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality.
After the latest results, the consensus from Fortuna Mining's three analysts is for revenues of US$935.2m in 2025, which would reflect a considerable 19% decline in revenue compared to the last year of performance. Statutory earnings per share are expected to sink 16% to US$0.45 in the same period. Yet prior to the latest earnings, the analysts had been anticipated revenues of US$1.03b and earnings per share (EPS) of US$0.78 in 2025. From this we can that sentiment has definitely become more bearish after the latest results, leading to lower revenue forecasts and a large cut to earnings per share estimates.
View our latest analysis for Fortuna Mining
The analysts made no major changes to their price target of CA$9.16, suggesting the downgrades are not expected to have a long-term impact on Fortuna Mining's valuation. It could also be instructive to look at the range of analyst estimates, to evaluate how different the outlier opinions are from the mean. The most optimistic Fortuna Mining analyst has a price target of CA$10.08 per share, while the most pessimistic values it at CA$7.02. This shows there is still a bit of diversity in estimates, but analysts don't appear to be totally split on the stock as though it might be a success or failure situation.
Looking at the bigger picture now, one of the ways we can make sense of these forecasts is to see how they measure up against both past performance and industry growth estimates. These estimates imply that revenue is expected to slow, with a forecast annualised decline of 24% by the end of 2025. This indicates a significant reduction from annual growth of 27% over the last five years. Compare this with our data, which suggests that other companies in the same industry are, in aggregate, expected to see their revenue grow 13% per year. So although its revenues are forecast to shrink, this cloud does not come with a silver lining - Fortuna Mining is expected to lag the wider industry.
The most important thing to take away is that the analysts downgraded their earnings per share estimates, showing that there has been a clear decline in sentiment following these results. Unfortunately, they also downgraded their revenue estimates, and our data indicates underperformance compared to the wider industry. Even so, earnings per share are more important to the intrinsic value of the business. There was no real change to the consensus price target, suggesting that the intrinsic value of the business has not undergone any major changes with the latest estimates.
Following on from that line of thought, we think that the long-term prospects of the business are much more relevant than next year's earnings. We have forecasts for Fortuna Mining going out to 2027, and you can see them free on our platform here.
Plus, you should also learn about the 1 warning sign we've spotted with Fortuna Mining .
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise
Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Katie Nixon, Northern Trust, Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan, Dan Dolev, Mizuho, Rashad Bilal & Troy Millings, Earn Your Leisure, Matthew Griffin, Bloomberg News, Barry Bannister, Stifel, Jess Menton, Bloomberg News, Ed Ludlow, Bloomberg News, Stacy Rasgon, Bernstein Research, Frances Katzen, Douglas Elliman, Brett Winton, Ark Invest, Tony Zaccario, Stretch Zone, Nicole Camarre, 43North. (Source: Bloomberg)
New York Times
37 minutes ago
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.
CNET
37 minutes ago
- CNET
AT&T Has a New Affordable Senior Mobile Plan -- and Sorry, 55 Counts as a 'Senior'
AT&T has revealed its new phone plan for seniors, which offers mobile service at a discount for customers 55 years old and up. (Yes, Gen X, that's you -- or some of you, at least.) While the new plan only has the essentials, it's also cheaper than the carrier's feature-packed options. Even better, it's notably more affordable than AT&T's former senior plan. Carriers typically offer several plans to satisfy a range of customers, from the frugal to those that are willing to pay for every perk and bundled streaming service they can get. But plans targeting older Americans are often more bare-bones offerings, offered at lower prices to appeal to customers on fixed and limited incomes. AT&T's new AT&T 55 Plus plan is the most affordable it's offered in years. In exchange, the AT&T 55 Plus plan is pretty basic. For $40 per month for a single line (or $35 per month per line with two lines), you'll get unlimited voice calls, texting and data in the US, Canada and Mexico, and though AT&T's senior plan page indicates it has "5G access included," there's no clarity on which circumstances will enable high-speed data downloads and uploads on the senior plan. The plan also has 10GB of hotspot data per line per month, which is more generous than some other carrier offerings on our best senior plans list, along with a maximum 720p (SD) streaming speed for video. The plan also provides access to AT&T's free ActiveArmor app that blocks spam calls. Previously, AT&T offered a slightly discounted senior phone plan at $62 per month that was only available to customers living in Florida. Verizon retains a similar Florida-only senior plan. T-Mobile has several plans for seniors, from an older and basic Essentials Choice 55 plan starting at $45 per month up to Experience Beyond w/ 55 Plus starting at $85 per month and offering all the perks and extras of T-Mobile's other plans, including a five-year plan price guarantee, streaming services and satellite service beyond T-Mobile's network. Here's a breakdown of the best senior plans carriers offer 55-years-old and up customers: Best Senior Plans: T-Mobile, AT&T, Mint Mobile and Verizon Plan Cost 1 line (AutoPay) Cost 4 lines (AutoPay) High-speed data Hotspot data limit Price guarantee Max number of lines Streaming resolution T-Mobile Essentials Choice 55 $45 N/A 50GB Unlimited 3G N/A 2 480p (SD) T-Mobile Go5G 55 Plus $75 N/A Unlimited 5G 50GB N/A 2 Up to 4K T-Mobile Experience Beyond w/ 55+ $85 N/A Unlimited 5G 250GB 5 years 2 Up to 4K AT&T AT&T 55+ $40 $140 Unlimited 10GB N/A 10 480p (SD) Mint Mobile Mint 55 $15 N/A 5GB Shared 5GB main data budget N/A 5 480p (SD) Verizon Verizon 55 Plus $62 N/A Unlimited 4G LTE Unlimited 3G N/A 2 480p (SD) It's worth noting that every carrier plan's listed lowest price requires customers to sign up for autopay -- otherwise, the plans are more expensive every month. Customers must also prove their age by submitting an identification document to their carrier. Later this summer, AT&T will also offer a bundle combining two lines of AT&T 55+ with the customer's choice of either AT&T Fiber or AT&T Internet Air fixed wireless access internet, according to the carrier's blog post.
