Timing note: Newmont is scheduled to release Q2 results after the market closes today, Thursday, July 23, 2026, followed by its conference call at 5:30 p.m. ET. The date is July 23—not tomorrow, based on the current date. (newmont.com)
Newmont should report another highly profitable quarter, but the key issue is not whether earnings grew year over year—it is whether management can keep full-year guidance intact while absorbing lower production, sharply higher sequential costs and capital spending, Cadia disruption, and Ghana’s higher royalty burden.
Published estimates vary by provider, but the current range is approximately:
| Metric | Q2 2026 expectation | Q1 2026 actual | Q2 2025 actual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted EPS | $2.00–$2.20 | $2.90 | $1.43 |
| Revenue | $6.2B–$6.4B | $7.31B | $5.32B |
| Attributable gold production | Around 1.2 Moz based on company guidance | 1.30 Moz | 1.48 Moz |
| Gold by-product AISC | Materially above Q1’s $1,029/oz | $1,029/oz | $1,375/oz |
Recent sources place consensus adjusted EPS around $2.02–$2.18 and revenue around $6.19–$6.38 billion. Estimates have softened into the report: Zacks’ published EPS forecast fell to $2.18 from roughly $2.25 in late June, reflecting weaker gold pricing and Newmont’s explicit warning about lower production and higher costs. (benzinga.com)
The likely sequential decline from Q1 should not be interpreted as an operational collapse. Q1 benefited from a $4,900/oz realized gold price, exceptionally strong silver and copper by-product credits, and unusually low sustaining-capital spending. Those benefits were not expected to repeat fully in Q2. (newmont.com)
Management previously said Q2 would represent approximately 23% of full-year attributable gold production, slightly below Q1. Applying that percentage to the 5.26 million-ounce annual target implies roughly 1.21 million ounces.
The company also expects 48% of annual production in the first half. That implies approximately 2.52 million ounces for H1 and, after Q1’s 1.30 million ounces, approximately 1.22 million ounces for Q2. Both guideposts point to essentially the same result. (newmont.com)
A production result near 1.2 million ounces should be acceptable. A number below roughly 1.15 million would increase the burden on H2 and make the full-year target less comfortable.
Newmont explicitly warned that Q2 unit costs would be “notably higher” than Q1 because of:
This makes Q1’s $1,029/oz by-product AISC a poor baseline. Q1 was helped substantially by strong non-gold metal pricing and volumes, particularly at Peñasquito, as well as only $381 million of sustaining-capital investment.
Newmont’s seasonality guidance implies approximately $936 million of H1 sustaining capital. Subtracting Q1 suggests roughly $555 million for Q2, almost 46% above Q1. Development-capital guidance similarly implies approximately $391 million in Q2, versus $239 million in Q1.
The distinction between structural inflation and planned quarterly timing will probably matter more to the stock than the absolute Q2 AISC figure.
Current 2026 guidance includes:
| Metric | 2026 guidance |
|---|---|
| Attributable gold production | 5.26 Moz |
| Gold by-product CAS | $1,055/oz |
| Gold by-product AISC | $1,680/oz |
| Sustaining capital | $1.95B |
| Development capital | $1.40B |
| Copper production | 102 kt |
| Silver production | 32 Moz |
| Lead production | 90 kt |
| Zinc production | 220 kt |
Newmont entered Q2 saying it remained on track, but guidance already requires 52% of annual production in H2. Maintaining the forecast therefore depends on improvements at Boddington, Tanami, Lihir, Cerro Negro and Peñasquito, along with the continued ramp at Ahafo North. (newmont.com)
Given the stock’s volatility and declining estimates ahead of the report, a clean reaffirmation could be more important than a modest EPS beat.
Ghana enacted a sliding gold royalty of 5%–12%, while reducing its Growth and Sustainability Levy from 3% to 1%. Newmont estimated the net effect at approximately $185/oz for its Ghana operations and around $25/oz for Newmont overall. That impact was not included in the original 2026 guidance, although the company said it was pursuing productivity offsets. (investors.newmont.com)
Investors should listen for:
AISC guidance that remains unchanged despite the royalty would suggest meaningful offsets elsewhere. Conversely, incorporating Ghana through a guidance increase would show that the original cost target had limited contingency.
Q1 produced:
Those were exceptional figures, helped by Q1 commodity prices and low capital spending. Q2 free cash flow should decline sequentially as realized gold prices moderate and investment rises, but it can still be very strong in absolute terms. (newmont.com)
The important questions are:
A quarter with lower EPS but resilient cash generation would likely be received better than an accounting beat accompanied by weak cash conversion.
Newmont completed its previous $6 billion repurchase authorization and approved an additional $6 billion program with Q1 results. It had repurchased $2.4 billion of shares since the prior earnings call and returned $2.7 billion through repurchases and dividends over that period. (newmont.com)
The market will want to know:
The buyback is important for more than near-term demand. Newmont’s capital-allocation framework is designed to reduce the share count and increase the sustainable dividend per share without materially increasing the total annual dividend commitment.
A strong quarter of repurchases could also help EPS exceed expectations even if operating profit is merely in line.
This is one of the first earnings reports with Newmont’s reshaped leadership structure fully in effect. Effective July 1:
The changes place greater emphasis on operational consistency, technical performance and disciplined project execution. The conference-call discussion of cost control, mine planning and capital prioritization may therefore carry additional weight.
Investors should pay particular attention to whether the new team provides:
Through July 22, NEM had fallen approximately:
The broader gold-miner ETF and gold ETF also declined over those periods, so part of the weakness reflects lower bullion prices rather than Newmont-specific deterioration. Still, the post-Q1 decline suggests that investors are no longer capitalizing Q1’s record results as a sustainable quarterly run rate.
That creates a somewhat more balanced earnings setup:
The stock may therefore respond more to guidance, Cadia’s recovery and buybacks than to a small headline EPS beat or miss.
Newmont’s Q2 headline numbers will almost certainly be weaker than its extraordinary first quarter. That is already expected. The investment question is whether Q2 represents a planned seasonal trough or the beginning of another period of operational slippage.
The most constructive result would be roughly 1.2 million ounces of production, manageable cost inflation, robust free cash flow and unchanged full-year guidance. If Newmont delivers that combination—and demonstrates that Cadia is recovered and the H2 mine plan remains credible—the report should support the view that its strong balance sheet and buyback program can convert elevated gold margins into durable per-share value.
The major risk is that higher costs, Ghana royalties and site-level disruptions consume the cushion created by strong commodity prices. In that case, even an adjusted EPS beat could prove less important than a weaker production or AISC outlook.