FMG Share Price History
31 Jul, 2020
Australian miners Rio Tinto and Fortescue post record iron ore shipments as China industrial recovery continues
Australian mining giants Rio Tinto and Fortescue Metals Group have joined BHP Group in reporting record shipments of iron ore, the bulk of it to China, as an infrastructure and property construction boom in the world's second largest economy drives a rebound in steel production.The companies have reported record earnings on the back of the iron ore shipments, even though exports of other minerals like aluminium and copper remain in the doldrums as the coronavirus pandemic saps global demand.Australia's record iron ore exports to China, combined with a surge in shipments of coking and thermal coal, indicate trade in the key industrial ingredients has not suffered because of a diplomatic spat between the two countries.Rio Tinto reported on Thursday its iron ore shipments to China in the first half of the year rose 3 per cent compared to the same period a year-earlier.This pushed earnings up 2 per cent and allowed the Anglo-Australian miner to promise a US$2.5 billion dividend payout for shareholders.Announcing its fourth quarter fiscal results, Fortescue projected that iron ore shipments to China would rise 6 per cent to 178 million tonnes for the full financial year ended in June, exceeding its target of 177 million tonnes. Full-year results will be announced in a few weeks.The miner said exports were buoyed by strong Chinese steel production of 499 million tonnes in the first six months of the year, 1.4 per cent higher than the same period last year.Rio Tinto chief executive Jean-Sebastien Jacques said China had effectively absorbed the additional iron ore diverted from weaker steel markets in Europe and Asia."The main market for our high-quality iron ore is China, which compared to the broader global economy has recovered exceedingly well," Jacques said while announcing company results on Wednesday."China's steel production and demand for iron ore in 2019 was strong and this has continued despite disruptions in the first quarter."In 2020, [China's] crude steel production has again exceeded the 1 billion tonne annualised run rate and June production was a new all-time high record."Steel markets in Europe, the United States, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were still weak, Rio Tinto said.BHP also said last week it had met production targets for iron ore, thanks to China's economic recovery."In China, blast furnace utilisation rates have increased from around 80 per cent earlier in February 2020 to above 90 per cent in June 2020," BHP said in its financial year review."We continue to believe that if China can avoid a second wave of Covid-19, steel and pig iron production can both rise in the 2020 calendar year versus the prior year."Rio Tinto said Australia's contract-based iron ore shipments were strong, despite impacts from the coronavirus outbreak, allowing it to outperform other major miners such as Vale in Brazil, which has suffered from production restrictions and delays.But Vale, which has recently suffered setbacks including the Brumadinho dam collapse at its Corrego do Feijao mine, also saw profit recover in the second quarter thanks to higher iron ore prices. It said on Wednesday it would pay dividends that have been suspended since the dam accident last January.The continued demand for iron ore in China means Rio Tinto is committed to developing new iron ore projects at Simandou blocks 3 and 4 in Guinea, along with Chinese partner Chinalco Mining and the country's government.The diversified miner said it had drawn up plans to commission China-based design institutes to update and re-engineer the infrastructure of the project, which was approved in 2010."The Chinese are pretty active and they want to see a pathway to develop the two blocks," Jacques said.This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2020 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2020. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
30 Jul, 2020
Jul.30 -- Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Elizabeth Gaines discusses the company's projects, demand and business outlook. The world’s fourth-largest iron ore producer sees a path to lift export volumes further after shipments climbed to an annual record and it advances a slate of growth projects. Gaines speaks with Haslinda Amin and Rishaad Salamat on "Bloomberg Markets: Asia."
24 Jul, 2020
Today we'll do a simple run through of a valuation method used to estimate the attractiveness of Fortescue Metals...
17 Jun, 2020
Howard Marks put it nicely when he said that, rather than worrying about share price volatility, 'The possibility of...
16 Jun, 2020
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: VALE, BHP, RIO and FSUGY
13 Jun, 2020
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- It seemed like an incident from another era. Rio Tinto Group last month demolished a 46,000-year-old site sacred to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples to make way for an expansion of its Brockman 4 mine in Australia’s iron-rich northwestern Pilbara region. The act has been likened to the destruction of Palmyra by the Islamic State.It wasn’t only the Juukan Gorge caves that were blasted, though. Such a blithe act, and management’s subsequent inability to explain it, has undermined the decades Rio Tinto spent presenting itself as the socially responsible face of the mining industry.How could such an event happen? If you see mining companies the way they like to present themselves — as benevolent middle men, aiding the economic development of formerly colonized peoples while providing materials for the industrial development of the planet — then it’s inexplicable that they could display such indifference at a site nearly three times as old as the Lascaux Caves.That’s mostly a story for the cover of the corporate responsibility report.While mining companies employ plenty of people sincerely committed to land rights and no doubt believe much of their own rhetoric, a middle man isn't working for the sake of his suppliers or customers —he’s trying to maximize his own returns. When you’re dividing up the pie from selling mineral products, any cash spent giving landowners just compensation is money that’s not going to shareholders.Rio Tinto has spent decades burnishing a reputation for treating landowners better than some of its peers — but it’s a lot easier to be the good guy when the deck is so heavily stacked in your favor.As in many parts of the former British Empire, ownership of land in Australia was transferred to the Crown by a legal fiction upon European invasion in 1788. Until the middle of the 20th century, Aboriginal people in remote areas often worked as ranchers or servants in return for tobacco, sugar, tea and clothing — conditions not many rungs above slavery(2). The current disparate Indigenous Australian land-rights regimes were established from the 1970s to the 1990s against that backdrop. Despite the triumphs of figures such as Vincent Lingiari and Eddie Mabo in using strikes, political appeals and legal cases to win formal rights over land, campaigners have always had to fight off the back foot. The result isn’t hard to see on a visit to an outback Aboriginal community. Despite the fact that such areas host some of the world’s most lucrative mines, Indigenous Australians die about 14 years younger than their non-indigenous neighbors in remote areas. In the most isolated regions, they’re paid just 28 cents for every dollar earned by others and four out of 10 households are overcrowded.I’m from the U.K., where landowners still form an aristocracy that includes many of the country’s richest people. It’s depressing that as a migrant to Australia, I’m better off than most of the traditional owners(3) on whom this country’s wealth was built. This manifest injustice is explained in a variety of ways. Legally, land rights for Indigenous Australians are considered to have been “extinguished” if they were driven off their land in the past to make way for ranching, mining, real estate or infrastructure. That formula, one of the cornerstones of the country’s so-called native title system, bestows a blessing on a historical act of theft, rather than seeking to redress it.Politically, the miserable conditions that prevail in many remote Aboriginal communities are blamed on social breakdown and the perception (often justified) that money spent on Indigenous advancement has been wasted on corruption and mismanagement — in essence, blaming Indigenous people for their own dispossession and exploitation.For all that such problems are attributed to a surfeit of “welfare,” though, Australia spends just A$3.3 billion ($2.26 billion) a year on Indigenous-specific government programs, with much of that budget dedicated to closing inequalities in education and health. That’s far less than the A$14 billion or so a year that state and territory governments get from mining royalty payments. A first step toward reversing this would acknowledge the immense damage that mining and industry can do to landscapes that are an essential part of the world’s cultural legacy. Aboriginal people were the first to colonize a new continent by sea, and were grinding seeds for flour and stone to make ax-heads 20,000 years before the same technologies helped kick-start the agricultural revolution in the Fertile Crescent. At Murujuga near the Pilbara iron ore port of Karratha, a nominated world heritage site hosts more than a million petroglyphs — including depictions of extinct megafauna and the oldest carved images of human faces — hard against an LNG terminal, explosives factory and fertilizer plant.The destruction of the Juukan Gorge caves wasn’t an isolated incident. The Pilbara is thick with such cultural artifacts. A few days later, BHP Group received approval from Western Australia’s government to demolish 40 sites. Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. is seeking similar permission to expand its Solomon mine, where excavated sites include a cave whose occupation dates back 60,000 years.The solution isn’t to stop mining. In communities that have suffered neglect by the state, these companies are often welcomed as the only partners in economic development — but the current regime is clearly not working for traditional owners. What resources companies have always sought is a “social license to operate.” For too long, though, those notional licenses have been handed out in return for relatively paltry royalty payments, often in the form of in-kind agreements to employ local workers and provide health, education and infrastructure that the state fails to fund properly.What's needed is legal and political change. Australia’s native title laws skew the playing field in favor of resources companies, and must be reformed to give local communities rights to a larger share of the billions of dollars their land produces. The deal that South Australia state recently handed out to mostly white farmers with little fanfare — a cash royalty on new gas production equivalent to about 1% of the sale price — is the sort of settlement that many Aboriginal groups have fought and failed to win through decades of court battles.There are signs that change may be afoot. Australia’s High Court last month denied an appeal by Fortescue against a 2017 judgment, ensuring the Yindjibarndi people would hold a form of native title close to freehold land ownership. That precedent should strengthen the hand of Indigenous groups in negotiating with mining companies in the future.A separate judgement last year also gave more guidance for how the value of native titles should be assessed, and found it to be substantially above the sort of sums that have typically gone to title-holders. If similar payments were assessed for even just 5% of native title land, traditional owners would be entitled to some A$280 billion, according to one analysis of the case by law firm MinterEllison.In the Australian context, such enormous numbers are generally regarded as evidence that Indigenous land claims are politically impractical. In fact, they’re a small demonstration of the scale of what has been stolen. It’s well past time for those rights to be restored.(1) In some cases such "stolen wages" practices went on until the 1970s. After the 1950s notional cash salaries were normally paid, though often they were credited to trust accounts that Indigenous workers couldn't easily access, and that governments often plundered for unrelated spending.(2) The term "traditional owners" is used in Australia to encompass Indigenous people with freehold ownership of their land, as in parts of the Northern Territory; those who have more limited rights after winning native title cases; and those who haven't won any formal legal recognition of their land rights, as in most urban areas.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
28 May, 2020
The Zacks Industry Rank Highlights: Fortescue Metals and Vale
27 May, 2020
Two Top Picks for Contrarian Investors
19 May, 2020
Is Fortescue Metals Group Limited's (ASX:FMG) Latest Stock Performance A Reflection Of Its Financial Health?
Fortescue Metals Group's's (ASX:FMG) stock is up by a considerable 20% over the past three months. Given that the...
05 May, 2020
In the world's biggest iron ore loading hub, Western Australia's Port Hedland, huge vessels line up near the red-dirt coast, waiting to be loaded with the sought-after steel-making material. With its commodities sector suffering only minor disruptions from the coronavirus, Western Australia is currently one of the world's few bright spots, even as the wider national economy faces its first recession in three decades. Economists, miners and farmers believe global demand for food and iron ore will mark a return to prosperity for a region that fell into the doldrums in 2014.
29 Apr, 2020
Buying shares in the best businesses can build meaningful wealth for you and your family. While not every stock...
08 Apr, 2020
Fortescue Metals Group (ASX:FMG) shares have had a really impressive month, gaining 31%, after some slippage. And the...
06 Apr, 2020
To start with, the two firms will work toward building and operating a combined hydrogen production and refuelling unit at ATCO's existing facility in Jandakot, Perth, with the possibility of wider deployment across the state. The new unit will include a fleet of Toyota Mirai fuel cell electric vehicles provided by Toyota Motor Corp's Australian unit, the country's third-largest iron ore miner said. "As the world moves toward a lower carbon future, hydrogen has the potential to play a key role in the future energy mix and we want to ensure we remain at the forefront of Australia's renewable hydrogen industry," said Elizabeth Gaines, chief executive officer of Fortescue.
20 Mar, 2020
For beginners, it can seem like a good idea (and an exciting prospect) to buy a company that tells a good story to...
14 Mar, 2020
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Oil majors and big miners have been falling over themselves to promise better behavior when it comes to greenhouse gases. A significant number now say they are targeting zero emissions. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on exactly what that means. It leaves investors clear on good intentions, but far less so on how to price transition risk, compare strategies and judge success.The real trouble sits with the widest and most significant category of emissions — those that don’t come directly from operating a well or mine, but are produced indirectly when oil, gas, iron ore or coal is burned or processed by customers. For outfits like BP Plc and BHP Group, these so-called Scope 3 emissions can add up to as much as 90% of their total footprint. They’re also far harder to control, as they aren’t produced by the reporting companies themselves.Resources giants, even poorly performing oil majors, have the scale and financial clout to manage a transition to a carbon-light economy — should they choose to. The rapid destruction of value in segments of the coal sector has left few in doubt of how quickly they could be left behind if they ignore such downstream emissions. This week's collapse in oil prices is another memento mori for carbon-intensive businesses.That doesn’t mean everyone has embraced the idea of targeting Scope 3 emissions. Rio Tinto Group, for one, has said it can’t set targets for its clients, though it will engage in as yet unspecified projects with the likes of China Baowu Steel Group Corp. BHP will produce numbers later this year. Others, like BP, have promised to eliminate Scope 3 emissions where they’ve drilled the oil, but won’t commit to doing the same if they’re only doing the refining. Spain’s Repsol SA is among the few to be promising an absolute zero target for all three sets of emissions.In this flurry of green activity, what should investors be demanding?The first thing should be transparency. Many of the biggest emitters have yet to make full Scope 3 disclosures, including such pillars of developed-market stock indexes as Exxon Mobil Corp., Anglo American Plc, and Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. At this point, that decision is almost churlish: It isn’t hard for investors to do their own calculations. Those that don’t face up to the reality of decarbonization will increasingly be treated like any other business that’s careless about its medium- and long-term liabilities.A second point is comparability. Although the overwhelming majority of Scope 3 emissions for resources companies come from the processing and combustion of their products, the standard incorporates a range of other activities such as waste disposal, product distribution, and even business travel and staff commuting.To add to that complexity, companies can replace the standardized emissions factors used to produce the figures with bespoke ones if their customers operate particularly efficient plants. Without full transparency about where those savings come in, companies could reduce their footprint by leaning on overly generous assumptions, and claim credit that more rigorous competitors would miss out on.There is also the unsolved question of how to manage double-counting, when, for example, coking coal and iron ore are sold to a producer that will use both in making steel.Investors should demand the means to measure progress, and success. Laying out ambitions for emissions 30 years hence is all but meaningless unless you’re also describing a path to get there. If investors are to take these numbers seriously, they’ll want to see plans for the steps along the way.That won’t be easy. For oil majors, it will require nothing less than a reinvention of their entire businesses, moving into industries that have historically produced lower returns than fossil fuels, as former BP Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley has pointed out.Mining giants that have depended on revenues from high-volume bulk commodities such as coal and iron ore will have to either push their customers to switch to new technologies such as hydrogen-reduced steel, or depend on less lucrative base metals, specialty commodities and agricultural inputs.Providing too much detail about the road ahead risks disclosing a company’s business strategy, too, or tilting the market. How much of the reductions will come, as with Glencore Plc, from allowing mines and wells to deplete naturally as their reserve base is used up? How much will depend on selling assets, such as BP’s near-20% stake in Rosneft? How much will rely on technology that exists, but is not yet used on a wide scale, like carbon capture and storage?The last point on fund manager wish lists should be consistency. Investors will benchmark talk of long-term ambitions against performance on actual, shorter-term activity.Gabriel Wilson-Otto, head of stewardship, Asia Pacific, at BNP Paribas Asset Management, suggests that will mean keeping an eye on capital spending: Projects that generate downstream emissions decades into the future should be attracting more scrutiny. Similarly, corporate lobbying will be monitored for evidence it is allowing organisations to flash up green ambitions but still campaign against action on climate.None of this should be a burden on good governance. The CDP, a nonprofit research group that pushes for greenhouse disclosure, found in 2014 that the return on investment for companies that do so was 67% higher than for those that didn’t.The winds of decarbonization are blowing through the commodities industry. Companies that don’t bend in the face of these changes will break. To contact the authors of this story: Clara Ferreira Marques at firstname.lastname@example.orgDavid Fickling at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Matthew Brooker at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Clara Ferreira Marques is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities and environmental, social and governance issues. Previously, she was an associate editor for Reuters Breakingviews, and editor and correspondent for Reuters in Singapore, India, the U.K., Italy and Russia.David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.