Date clarification: Newmont reports after the North American market close today, Thursday, July 23, 2026, not tomorrow. The results call is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. ET. (newmont.com)
Newmont enters 2Q with an unusually clear setup: management explicitly guided to slightly lower production and notably higher unit costs than in 1Q, principally due to Cadia’s temporary disruption, lower silver output at Peñasquito, mine sequencing, and a planned ramp in sustaining and development capital. Thus, the key issue is not whether 2Q free cash flow declines from the record 1Q level—it almost certainly should—but whether Newmont can reaffirm full-year guidance and preserve the expected 2H operational recovery.
The central bullish argument remains intact: the company pairs a large, diversified gold portfolio with strong commodity-price leverage, a net-cash balance sheet, and a capital-allocation model designed to direct residual cash toward ongoing repurchases. The key near-term risk is that temporary operating interruptions and cost inflation shift from being planned and manageable into a broader guidance issue.
| Metric / topic | 1Q26 actual | 2Q26 setup |
|---|---|---|
| Attributable gold production | 1.30 Moz | Management indicated 2Q would represent about 23% of FY26 production, or roughly 1.21 Moz, and be modestly below 1Q. (newmont.com) |
| Gold by-product AISC | $1,029/oz | Expected to be notably higher sequentially, reflecting higher sustaining capital, lower silver production, and higher CAS. |
| Free cash flow | Record $3.14bn | Should decline sequentially as capital spending ramps; the more relevant question is whether cash generation remains robust enough to support buybacks and the balance-sheet framework. |
| FY26 production guidance | 5.26 Moz | A reaffirmation is the primary operational test. (newmont.com) |
| Capital returns | $6bn new authorization | Investors will look for evidence that repurchases continued at a meaningful pace during the quarter. (newmont.com) |
Cadia suffered a magnitude 4.5 earthquake in April. Management’s prior expectation was for underground rehabilitation to enable a return to roughly 80% operating capacity within five weeks and full capacity by the end of 2Q. The operation was expected to process surface stockpiles during the outage, but management had already flagged a shortfall in mill feed and lower 2Q production.
The earnings release should answer three questions:
A clean recovery matters beyond 2Q. Cadia is a major gold-and-copper asset, and its copper by-product credits are meaningful to Newmont’s consolidated cost structure.
Management framed 2026 as 48% weighted to the first half and 52% to the second half, with 2Q expected to be the lower point. The expected 2H improvement is tied to higher output from Boddington, Tanami, Lihir, Cerro Negro and Peñasquito, as well as a sequential ramp at Ahafo North.
In 2Q, the operational headwinds already telegraphed were:
Consequently, a modest production decline is not itself bearish. The downside case would be lower output plus a change to the 2H recovery narrative.
Newmont said that Boddington had returned to normal throughput after the 1Q bushfire disruption. It also expected Tanami Expansion 2’s materials-handling system to be completed by the end of 2Q. Investors should look for confirmation of both milestones.
At Lihir, the medium-term narrative depends on reaching higher-grade areas and advancing the Nearshore Barrier work. The company has indicated that material spending on the barrier begins in 2H; investors should therefore focus less on a 2Q project-spend step-up and more on scope, timing, permitting, and future capital commentary.
Newmont’s 1Q by-product AISC of $1,029/oz was exceptionally low relative to its FY26 guidance of $1,680/oz. The 1Q outcome benefited from strong silver and copper contribution, favorable co-product volumes, and temporarily low sustaining-capital spend. Management clearly warned that 2Q AISC would move materially higher as those factors reverse. (newmont.com)
The most constructive outcome would be:
Newmont’s FY26 framework used a $70/bbl Brent assumption. In its 1Q call, management quantified that every $10/bbl move in oil implies roughly $60m of cost impact, or approximately $12/oz of AISC, before mitigation. Brent moved above $95/bbl this week amid renewed supply-route concerns. (live.euronext.com)
If a ~$26/bbl premium to Newmont’s planning assumption were sustained, a simple application of management’s sensitivity implies roughly $156m of annual pre-tax cost pressure, or about $32/oz on 4.9 Moz of guided gold sales. This is an illustrative sensitivity—not a forecast—because Newmont can mitigate some exposure through productivity, procurement, currency effects, timing, and other offsets.
In addition, the new Ghana royalty regime was expected to add approximately $25/oz to consolidated AISC in 2026, an impact not included in original guidance. Commentary on cost offsets in Ghana will be important.
Newmont generated record $3.1bn of free cash flow in 1Q, ended with $8.8bn of cash, and held a $3.2bn net-cash position. It had fully used the prior repurchase authorization and received a fresh $6bn authorization. (newmont.com)
2Q free cash flow should be materially lower than 1Q due to:
That is expected. The more important read-through is whether Newmont continues to execute its formulaic capital-allocation framework:
A strong result would show meaningful repurchase activity despite the expected quarterly cash-flow normalization. A softer result would feature lower free cash flow coupled with slower buybacks, elevated spending, or a more cautious capital-return outlook.
This report is primarily a guidance-integrity and execution test, not a test of whether Newmont can repeat its extraordinary 1Q cash flow. The company pre-signaled a lower-volume, higher-cost 2Q. Therefore, the decisive issue is whether management can demonstrate that the quarter was simply the expected trough before a 2H recovery.
For investors, the most important combination is: Cadia recovery on schedule, full-year guidance maintained, costs contained within the existing framework, and continued buyback deployment. If Newmont delivers that combination, a mechanically weaker quarter should be viewed as consistent with the company’s 2026 plan rather than as a deterioration in the underlying investment case.