Is Barrick Gold Corporation Suffering From 'Bigness' Addiction?

Barrick's failed efforts to merge with Newmont Mining is one of many attempts that have ended with a deal deemed inappropriate. Was Barrick really seeking efficiency? Or was the company willing to expose shareholders to a risky deal because it was big?

May 2, 2014 at 8:47AM

Barrick Gold's (NYSE:ABX) and Newmont Mining's (NYSE:NEM) merger talks have ended—again. As focus turns to why the talks broke down, there's some speculation that Barrick may attempt a hostile takeover. Barrick shareholders should not only be relieved that the potential deal fell through, but they should really be concerned about any sincere takeover efforts.

Barrick recognizes 'big' isn't a strategy
Barrick has a reputation for its aggressive growth strategies, some which are extremely risky. Take its massive Pascua-Lama project located along the borders of Chile and Argentina. It was a megadream turned megamess that's now been suspended.

Investors have lashed out at mining companies who acted like getting bigger was a prudent strategy. Barrick executives responded by assuring shareholders they've learned lessons. They portray a company that's wiser, more focused on efficiency, and recognizes the need to slim down.

Last year Barrick whittled down debt, divested numerous high-cost, non-core assets and closed the Pierina mine. Ending 2013 with all-in-sustaining-costs (AISC) of $913 an ounce, Barrick appeared to be practicing what it preached.

Or, at least it seemed until news of the merger talks with Newmont, a company whose 2013 AISC was $1,104. This raises the question -- is Barrick addicted to bigness?

Peter Munk, Barrick's founder and chairman, touted the merger as a great value to shareholders and made it seem as if shareholders were pressing Barrick to pursue the deal. But why would they? Why now?

A billion reasons to merge, really?
If Barrick and Newmont merged, the companies claimed they could save over $1 billion a year in Nevada, where they both have operations representing slightly over a third of their total production. Some analysts' were skeptical about that calculation, and rightfully so.

Barrick's operations are already low-cost relative to peers, including Newmont. Barrick's 2014 forecast projected 60% of its production will come from five mines in the Americas with $700-800 AISC. When the company set out to clean up its balance sheet last year, the strategy was to address any mine with costs over $1,000.

Newmont's forecast projects over 50% of its production will also come from the Americas this year. The projected AISC ranges from $1,045 to $1,205.

Binge and purge?
In addition to having to tackle Newmont's higher costs, Barrick would assume potential liabilities, such as Newmont's delayed Conga Project in Peru—its fate also unknown. Barrick already has assets it wants to offload and Newmont would bring more undesirables. The companies planned to spin off the undesirables into a new company.

According to reports, that involved Barrick's shareholders parting ways with their current CEO, Jamie Sokalsky, who would take the reigns of the spinoff company. Newmont's CEO, Gary Goldberg, was to run the main unit.

In the end, Munk claims this megadeal would lead to a leaner, more efficient company. Without Newmont, Barrick plans to produce 6 million to 6.5 million ounces this year. If combined, Munk claimed the two companies, which currently produce over 13 million ounces, would scale that back to 6.5 million to 7 million ounces.

"Not only don't we get bigger, we both get smaller. But we get much, much more profitable," Munk told Bloomberg.

Was it really in Barrick's shareholders best interest to pay a 13% premium under these circumstances? Or was it Barrick set to relapse to old habits?

The end of an era?
The merger efforts smelled suspiciously like Barrick wanting to make big news with a bid deal. Munk has said his ultimate goal is to be the biggest.

Barrick was aiming for an agreement before the shareholders meeting on April 30, when Munk is set to retire. Had they inked the deal, the founder of the world's largest gold mining company would mark his exit with the largest gold mining deal in history. What better storyline could Munk have wished for?

But after the grand headlines, Barrick's investors would have been left with what could have been another megamess of a deal. This is one of multiple merger efforts that have failed, a fact that should not be ignored. Barrick's investors should be relieved and should hope that Munk's departure ends an era of Barrick's addiction to bigness.

You don't want to miss this
The Economist compares this disruptive invention to the steam engine and the printing press. Business Insider says it's "the next trillion dollar industry." And everyone from BMW, to Nike, to the U.S. Air Force is already using it every day. Watch The Motley Fool's shocking video presentation today to discover the garage gadget that's putting an end to the Made In China era... and learn the investing strategy we've used to double our money on these 3 stocks. Click here to watch now!


Michelle Smith has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

4 in 5 Americans Are Ignoring Buffett's Warning

Don't be one of them.

Jun 12, 2015 at 5:01PM

Admitting fear is difficult.

So you can imagine how shocked I was to find out Warren Buffett recently told a select number of investors about the cutting-edge technology that's keeping him awake at night.

This past May, The Motley Fool sent 8 of its best stock analysts to Omaha, Nebraska to attend the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting. CEO Warren Buffett and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger fielded questions for nearly 6 hours.
The catch was: Attendees weren't allowed to record any of it. No audio. No video. 

Our team of analysts wrote down every single word Buffett and Munger uttered. Over 16,000 words. But only two words stood out to me as I read the detailed transcript of the event: "Real threat."

That's how Buffett responded when asked about this emerging market that is already expected to be worth more than $2 trillion in the U.S. alone. Google has already put some of its best engineers behind the technology powering this trend. 

The amazing thing is, while Buffett may be nervous, the rest of us can invest in this new industry BEFORE the old money realizes what hit them.

KPMG advises we're "on the cusp of revolutionary change" coming much "sooner than you think."

Even one legendary MIT professor had to recant his position that the technology was "beyond the capability of computer science." (He recently confessed to The Wall Street Journal that he's now a believer and amazed "how quickly this technology caught on.")

Yet according to one J.D. Power and Associates survey, only 1 in 5 Americans are even interested in this technology, much less ready to invest in it. Needless to say, you haven't missed your window of opportunity. 

Think about how many amazing technologies you've watched soar to new heights while you kick yourself thinking, "I knew about that technology before everyone was talking about it, but I just sat on my hands." 

Don't let that happen again. This time, it should be your family telling you, "I can't believe you knew about and invested in that technology so early on."

That's why I hope you take just a few minutes to access the exclusive research our team of analysts has put together on this industry and the one stock positioned to capitalize on this major shift.

Click here to learn about this incredible technology before Buffett stops being scared and starts buying!

David Hanson owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and American Express. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, Google, and Coca-Cola.We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

©1995-2014 The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. | Privacy/Legal Information