Barrick Mining (B) Stock Re-Rating: Why the Mali Settlement and $4,000 Gold Point to 44% Upside in 2026

Table of Contents

Gold has spent 2026 doing what gold rarely does: printing all-time highs, month after month, until an ounce of the metal traded above $4,000. And yet one of the two largest gold producers on the planet — the company that owns a piece of one of the most productive gold complexes on Earth — has spent the same year going sideways to down. Barrick Mining (NYSE: B), which until this past spring was known to a generation of investors as “Barrick Gold” under the ticker GOLD, now trades at roughly 10 times trailing earnings and more than 40% upside to the Wall Street consensus price target, even as the price of its core product sits near record levels.

That disconnect is the entire investment case, and it is the reason this is a Barrick Mining stock re-rating story rather than a momentum chase. When a company’s product is booming but its shares are not, one of two things is true: either the market has spotted a problem the bulls are ignoring, or the market is anchoring on a fear that is already in the process of being resolved. This article argues that in Barrick’s case it is overwhelmingly the latter — that the single biggest overhang on the stock, a bruising two-year dispute with the government of Mali, was formally settled in late 2025, and that the market has not yet re-rated the shares to reflect a de-risked, cash-gushing, tier-one asset base leveraged to $4,000 gold.

Three points frame the thesis. First, the valuation is genuinely cheap — not “cheap for a hot growth stock,” but cheap in absolute terms: a forward P/E under 9, a price-to-book of 2.3 (the lowest among its senior-producer peers), and an enterprise value under 6 times EBITDA at a time when margins per ounce are the widest in the company’s history. Second, the catalysts are concrete and near-dated: the Mali settlement restores roughly half a million ounces of lost annual production, the Lumwana copper “Super Pit” is on schedule to double copper output by 2028, and second-quarter 2026 results land on August 10. Third, the balance sheet is a fortress — Barrick holds more cash ($7.1 billion) than total debt ($4.7 billion), a net-cash position that is exceedingly rare for a capital-intensive miner and that underwrites both the dividend and an active buyback.

This is not a riskless setup, and a serious part of this report is devoted to why the stock is cheap in the first place: jurisdictional risk from Mali to the Democratic Republic of Congo to Pakistan, a commodity whose price Barrick does not control, and a leadership transition that saw long-time CEO Mark Bristow depart in early 2026. But at $36.95, with consensus at roughly $53, a 1.9% dividend, and net cash on the balance sheet, the risk/reward is asymmetric. The following sections walk through the business, the gold-and-copper industry backdrop, the economic moat embedded in tier-one orebodies, the financials, a step-by-step valuation, the risks, and a concrete exit plan.

—

1. Company Overview

Barrick Mining Corporation is one of the world’s two largest gold producers and, increasingly, a serious copper company. Headquartered in Toronto and dual-listed on the New York Stock Exchange (ticker B) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (ticker ABX), the company was founded in 1983, transformed by the 2019 merger with Randgold Resources, and — in a move that tells you where management thinks the future lies — renamed itself from “Barrick Gold Corporation” to “Barrick Mining Corporation” in May 2025, changing its US ticker from GOLD to B on May 9, 2025 (source: Barrick corporate disclosures; MarketBeat).

How Barrick makes money. The business model is conceptually simple and operationally brutal: find gold and copper orebodies, build multi-billion-dollar mines to extract the ore, process it into doré bars and copper concentrate, and sell the metal at the prevailing spot price. Barrick is a price-taker — it does not set the price of gold or copper — so profitability is a function of two things it can influence: the volume of metal produced and the all-in cost of producing each ounce. In 2025 the company produced 3.26 million ounces of gold and a record 220,000 tonnes of copper, generating $16.96 billion of revenue and $3.87 billion of free cash flow (source: Barrick FY2025 results). On a trailing-twelve-month basis through the first half of 2026 — a period that captured the surge in gold prices — revenue has climbed to roughly $19.0 billion with net income to shareholders of about $6.1 billion (source: Finviz TTM; company filings).

The asset base. Barrick’s crown jewel is its 61.5% operating stake in Nevada Gold Mines, a joint venture with Newmont that is the largest gold-producing complex on the planet, encompassing storied deposits such as Carlin, Cortez, and Turquoise Ridge. Beyond Nevada, the portfolio spans Pueblo Viejo in the Dominican Republic (Barrick’s equity share of 2026 gold production is guided to 350,000–400,000 ounces), Kibali in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Loulo-Gounkoto in Mali, Veladero in Argentina, and Porgera in Papua New Guinea. Nevada and Pueblo Viejo alone contributed more than $2.8 billion of EBITDA over the first nine months of 2025 (source: company filings), underscoring how concentrated the earnings power is in a handful of world-class, lower-risk assets.

Segment mix. Barrick reports along two metal lines. Gold remains the overwhelming majority of revenue and earnings, but copper is the growth engine: a record 220,000 tonnes in 2025, with a stated ambition to roughly double copper output by 2028 via the Lumwana expansion in Zambia. The rebrand to “Barrick Mining” is a deliberate signal that management wants investors to value the company as a diversified gold-and-copper miner, not a pure-play bullion proxy.

Ownership and governance. Barrick is overwhelmingly an institutionally owned stock — roughly 67% of shares are held by institutions, with insider ownership under 0.5% (source: Yahoo Finance). That ownership profile matters for the thesis: institutional holders are precisely the investors most likely to re-rate the stock once the Mali overhang clears and the cash-flow story becomes undeniable. Governance is in transition. Long-time President and CEO Mark Bristow stepped down in early 2026 after nearly seven years at the helm; Mark Hill, a two-decade company veteran who ran the Latin American and Asia-Pacific regions, took over on an interim basis while the board conducts a search for a permanent successor (source: Barrick leadership announcements; Mining.com). Helen Cai became Chief Financial Officer on March 1, 2026. This leadership churn is a genuine uncertainty, addressed directly in the risk section.

—

2. Industry Analysis

2-1. Market Size & Growth Trajectory

The gold market is enormous and, in 2026, extraordinarily lucrative for low-cost producers. Gold is simultaneously a monetary asset, a central-bank reserve holding, a jewelry input, and a crisis hedge, which is why its price behaves unlike any industrial commodity. Through 2026, spot gold pushed to fresh all-time highs before settling around $4,050 per ounce in early August (source: Trading Economics, August 3, 2026). To put that in perspective: Barrick’s 2026 all-in sustaining cost (AISC) guidance is $1,760–$1,950 per ounce, with total cash costs of $1,330–$1,470 per ounce (source: Barrick cost guidance). At $4,050 gold against a mid-point AISC near $1,850, Barrick is earning an all-in cash margin of roughly $2,200 on every ounce it sells — the fattest per-ounce economics the industry has seen in modern history.

The structural driver of gold’s ascent is not a mystery. Central banks — particularly in emerging markets seeking to diversify away from the US dollar — have been net buyers of gold at a historic pace, and persistent concern about sovereign debt loads, currency debasement, and geopolitical fragmentation has kept investment demand elevated. Unlike a technology product cycle, gold demand does not “mature” and roll over; it ebbs and flows with the macro backdrop. The industry today sits in an unusual sweet spot: a high, sustained metal price meeting a producer base that spent the prior decade under-investing in new supply, which means the price signal is flowing almost directly to the bottom line rather than being competed away by a flood of new production.

Copper, Barrick’s second pillar, is a different but complementary market: a genuinely industrial metal whose demand is tied to electrification, grid buildout, data-center construction, and the energy transition. Copper’s multi-decade demand story is one of structural scarcity — the world is not discovering large, high-grade copper deposits fast enough to meet electrification demand — which is exactly why Barrick’s massive undeveloped copper resources (Lumwana, Reko Diq) carry strategic option value.

2-2. Structural Growth Drivers

Driver 1 — Record metal prices flowing straight to cash flow. The most important near-term driver is simply that the gold price has re-rated far faster than mining costs. Because a miner’s costs are relatively fixed in the short run, every incremental dollar of gold price above the cost base drops through to margin with enormous operating leverage. This is why Barrick’s first-quarter 2026 earnings surged 238% year-over-year (source: Investing.com, Barrick Q1 2026), and why first-half 2026 operating cash flow rose 32% to $2.5 billion while free cash flow more than doubled (up 107%) versus the prior-year period (source: Barrick H1 2026 operational update). Gold miners are, in effect, leveraged call options on the gold price — and that leverage is working powerfully in Barrick’s favor right now.

Driver 2 — Copper as a second growth leg. Barrick is deliberately building a copper franchise to complement gold. The Lumwana “Super Pit” expansion in Zambia — a roughly $2 billion project — is on schedule and on budget to double the mine’s copper production by 2028, which management projects will vault Barrick into the ranks of top-tier global copper producers (source: Barrick Lumwana disclosures). Layered behind Lumwana is Reko Diq in Pakistan, one of the largest undeveloped copper-gold deposits in the world, which Barrick’s own leadership has described as capable of generating on the order of $74 billion over a 37-year mine life (source: Mining.com). Copper diversifies Barrick away from pure gold-price dependency and plugs the company directly into the electrification megatrend. (The important caveat — that Reko Diq’s timeline has slipped — is covered in the risk section.)

Driver 3 — Reserve replacement and tier-one focus. The existential risk for any miner is depletion: every ounce sold is an ounce that must be replaced or the company slowly liquidates itself. Barrick has bucked the industry trend by growing its gold and copper reserves, which management has explicitly flagged as a differentiator versus peers who are struggling to replace what they mine (source: Barrick reserves disclosure, 2025). Simultaneously, new leadership has signaled a strategic pivot toward tier-one assets in stable jurisdictions — stepping back from some frontier markets in Africa and Asia in favor of long-life, low-cost mines in North America. This is a quality-over-quantity shift that, if executed, should command a higher valuation multiple over time.

2-3. Competitive Landscape

Barrick competes at the very top of the industry — the “senior producer” tier — against a small handful of global peers. The striking feature of the current market is that the entire group is cheap relative to the gold price, but Barrick is the cheapest of the majors on book value and sales, which is the crux of the re-rating argument.

Company	Ticker	Market Cap	P/E (ttm)	Fwd P/E	P/B	P/S	Consensus Target (upside)
Barrick Mining	B	$61.9B	10.2	8.8	2.26	3.25	$53.30 (+44%)
Newmont	NEM	$99.4B	11.9	8.9	2.83	3.93	$133.59 (+42%)
Agnico Eagle	AEM	$75.0B	12.6	11.6	2.60	5.16	$225.91 (+54%)
Kinross Gold	KGC	$27.9B	8.9	7.6	2.88	3.30	$38.90 (+66%)

(Source: Finviz, real-time quotes. Figures approximate and change intraday.)

Two observations. First, Barrick carries the lowest price-to-book (2.26) and lowest price-to-sales (3.25) of the senior gold producers, despite owning arguably the highest-quality single asset in the industry (its stake in Nevada Gold Mines). Second, the premium multiple in the group belongs to Agnico Eagle, which the market rewards for operating almost entirely in politically safe jurisdictions (Canada, Finland, Australia). That contrast tells you exactly why Barrick is discounted — jurisdictional risk — and exactly what would close the gap: successful de-risking of assets like Mali (now settled) and a credible pivot toward safer geographies (now underway). Barrick does not need to become the most expensive stock in the group to deliver a strong return; it simply needs to close part of the discount to its own peers while the gold price does the rest.

—

3. Economic Moat Analysis

Mining is a commodity business, and commodity businesses are not supposed to have moats. But the durable competitive advantage in mining does not come from the metal — it comes from the orebody. A great mine is a non-replicable geological accident, and owning a portfolio of the best ones is a genuine, defensible edge.

Moat Type 1: Cost Advantage (Tier-One Orebodies)

Barrick’s primary moat is structural cost advantage rooted in asset quality. The company organizes its portfolio around the concept of a “tier-one asset” — broadly, a mine with more than roughly 5 million ounces of reserves, a life exceeding ten years, and costs in the lower half of the industry cost curve. These assets matter enormously because in a commodity industry, the low-cost producer wins in every price environment: it earns fat margins when prices are high and survives and takes share when prices are low and higher-cost competitors are forced to curtail.

The concrete evidence is in the cost structure. With 2026 AISC guided to $1,760–$1,950 per ounce against a gold price above $4,000, Barrick’s flagship operations generate cash margins that most of the industry cannot match. Nevada Gold Mines and Pueblo Viejo alone threw off more than $2.8 billion of EBITDA in nine months. These are not marginal mines that only work at peak prices; they are among the most profitable ounces produced anywhere on Earth, and their economics hold up even if gold were to fall meaningfully from current levels.

Moat Type 2: Efficient Scale & Irreplaceable Assets

The second moat is efficient scale combined with the sheer irreplaceability of Barrick’s best deposits. There are only a small number of genuine tier-one gold complexes in the world, and Barrick’s 61.5% operating interest in Nevada Gold Mines gives it control of the largest of them. You cannot simply build a competitor to Carlin or Cortez — the geology does not exist to be bought at any price, and the permitting, infrastructure, and operational know-how accumulated over decades represent a barrier no amount of capital can quickly replicate. This is efficient scale in its purest form: the addressable “market” of world-class gold orebodies is finite and largely spoken for, and Barrick sits on a disproportionate share of it.

Scale also confers advantages in capital access, exploration reach, and the ability to fund multi-billion-dollar projects like Lumwana and Reko Diq that smaller miners simply cannot underwrite. Barrick’s ability to grow its reserves — replacing and exceeding what it mines — while much of the industry struggles to stand still, is direct evidence that this scale-plus-expertise moat is real and compounding.

Moat Durability Assessment

Will this moat hold over five to ten years? The orebody-based advantages are among the most durable in all of investing — a tier-one deposit does not lose its geology to a competitor’s innovation, and Barrick’s reserve growth suggests the asset base is being sustained rather than depleted. The genuine threat to the moat is not competitive; it is political and jurisdictional. A tier-one asset is only as valuable as the security of tenure over it, and Barrick’s Mali experience — where the government seized gold and suspended operations before a 2025 settlement — is the sharpest possible illustration that a world-class orebody in a fragile jurisdiction carries a permanent risk discount. The counterargument, and the reason the moat still holds, is threefold: the crown-jewel Nevada assets sit in one of the safest mining jurisdictions on Earth; the Mali dispute has now been resolved with a ten-year permit extension; and new leadership is explicitly steering capital toward safer geographies. The moat is durable, but it is a moat that must be actively defended through jurisdiction management — which is precisely what the current strategic pivot is about.

—

투자 분석 이미지 — Photo by Jingming Pan on Unsplash

4. Financial Analysis

Barrick’s financial trajectory over the past four years is a textbook illustration of operating leverage meeting a rising commodity price. The table below traces the income statement (source: company filings via Yahoo Finance):

Fiscal Year	Revenue	Operating Income	Net Income (to shareholders)	Diluted EPS
2022	$11.01B	$3.02B	$0.43B	$0.24
2023	$11.40B	$2.81B	$1.27B	$0.72
2024	$12.92B	$4.18B	$2.14B	$1.22
2025	$16.96B	$8.01B	$4.99B	$2.93
TTM (mid-2026)	~$19.0B	—	~$6.1B	$3.63

The story in the numbers is unmistakable. Revenue grew from $11.0 billion in 2022 to $17.0 billion in 2025 — a 54% increase in three years — but net income to shareholders exploded more than ten-fold, from $0.43 billion to $4.99 billion, and trailing-twelve-month net income has since climbed to roughly $6.1 billion. That is operating leverage in action: because costs rose far more slowly than the gold price, the bulk of incremental revenue fell straight to the bottom line. The 2022 result was depressed by asset impairments, which exaggerates the growth rate somewhat, but even normalizing for one-offs, the earnings trend is powerfully upward.

Margins and returns. On a trailing basis Barrick generates gross margins around 52%, operating margins around 51%, and a net profit margin around 32% (source: Yahoo Finance). Return on equity has climbed to roughly 24–25% and return on assets to about 12% — impressive figures for a capital-intensive miner and a direct consequence of high-margin ounces meeting a disciplined cost base.

Cash flow and the balance-sheet fortress. This is where Barrick separates itself from the typical miner. Trailing free cash flow is approximately $5.3 billion, and operating cash flow roughly $9.0 billion (source: Yahoo Finance). Critically, Barrick holds about $7.1 billion of cash against $4.7 billion of total debt — a net-cash position of roughly $2.4 billion — with a current ratio above 3.0 and a debt-to-equity ratio near 0.17. For a company that must continually fund enormous capital projects, holding net cash is a rare luxury that gives management the freedom to invest through the cycle, sustain the dividend, and repurchase shares without financial strain. Indeed, the diluted share count has been drifting down (from about 1.75 billion in 2023 toward 1.68 billion today), reflecting active buybacks.

Capital returns. Barrick pays a dividend of $0.70 per share, a yield of about 1.9%, with a conservative payout ratio near 23% — leaving ample room for growth or top-ups as free cash flow builds. The combination of a covered dividend, buybacks, and a net-cash balance sheet means shareholders are being paid to wait for the re-rating.

The forward path is one of continued margin expansion so long as gold holds near current levels, plus volume growth as Loulo-Gounkoto restarts in Mali and copper output scales toward the 2028 Lumwana milestone. Second-quarter 2026 results, due August 10, will be the next concrete data point on this trajectory.

—

5. Valuation

Because Barrick is solidly profitable, an earnings-based valuation is appropriate, cross-checked against cash-flow and book-value multiples. All per-share inputs below use the authoritative fetched figures: current price $36.95, trailing EPS $3.63 (P/E 10.2), and consensus forward EPS (“EPS next Y”) of $4.19 (forward P/E 8.8).

Step 1 — Establish the earnings base. The correct anchor for a forward fair value is consensus forward EPS of $4.19. At today’s price of $36.95, the market is paying just 8.8 times next year’s expected earnings for a net-cash, tier-one gold-and-copper major at a moment of record margins. For context, gold producers have historically commanded low-to-mid-teens earnings multiples in constructive gold environments.

Step 2 — Apply a re-rating multiple. A base-case re-rating to a still-modest 13x forward earnings — below where premium peer Agnico Eagle trades and merely in line with the sector’s long-run average — yields a fair value of 13 × $4.19 ≈ $54.5 per share. Notably, this lands almost exactly on the Wall Street consensus target of ~$53 (Finviz consensus $53.30; Yahoo mean $52.87, median $56.40 across 16 analysts rating the stock a “Buy”).

Step 3 — Cross-check with cash flow and book value. Two independent checks support the earnings-based figure. On an enterprise-value basis, Barrick trades at roughly 5.8x EV/EBITDA — cheap for a miner earning peak-cycle margins. On free cash flow, trailing FCF of ~$5.3 billion against a $61.9 billion market cap is an 8.5% free-cash-flow yield, unusually high for a business with Barrick’s asset quality. And at a price-to-book of just 2.26 — the lowest of its senior peers — the shares are inexpensive on the value of the underlying assets themselves.

Step 4 — Scenario analysis.

Scenario	Assumptions	Fair Value	vs. Current ($36.95)
Bull	Gold sustains >$4,000, Loulo restart + copper on track, multiple re-rates to ~15x	$64	+73%
Base	Gold holds near current, steady execution, ~13x forward earnings	$54	+46%
Bear	Gold corrects toward $3,000, execution stumbles, multiple stays ~9x	$38	~flat

The asymmetry is the point. The bear case — which assumes a meaningful gold correction and operational disappointment — still lands roughly at today’s price, because the net-cash balance sheet, the 1.9% dividend, and the rock-bottom multiple provide a valuation floor. The base and bull cases, meanwhile, offer 46% to 73% upside. The consensus of 16 analysts sits at a “Buy,” with a mean target near $53 and a high of $64, so this valuation is not an outlier view — it is the mainstream Wall Street case, one the market price simply has not caught up to yet.

Where I differ from consensus: I broadly agree with the analyst community on the target range but would emphasize that the consensus may itself prove conservative if gold holds above $4,000 through year-end, because the sell-side typically models a lower long-run gold price than the current spot. The risk to the view is symmetric to that assumption — hence the bear case above.

—

6. Risk Factors

Risk 1 — Jurisdictional and political risk. This is the single most important risk and the primary reason the stock is cheap. Barrick operates tier-one assets in jurisdictions with meaningful political risk: the 2023–2025 dispute with Mali saw the government seize gold, suspend the Loulo-Gounkoto complex, and detain staff before a settlement was reached that cost Barrick roughly $430 million and a negotiated permit extension. Kibali sits in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Reko Diq is in Pakistan, where security conditions recently forced Barrick to slow development. The counterweight is that the crown-jewel Nevada assets are in one of the safest mining jurisdictions on Earth, the Mali dispute is now resolved, and new management is explicitly de-emphasizing frontier markets — but investors must accept that a portion of Barrick’s asset base will always carry a political risk premium, and that a fresh dispute in any single country could hit sentiment hard.

Risk 2 — Gold and copper price dependency. Barrick is a price-taker with essentially no control over its revenue per unit. Today’s fat margins are a direct function of $4,000+ gold; if gold were to correct sharply — as it has done before, and after reaching record highs earlier in 2026 it has already pulled back somewhat — the same operating leverage that is amplifying earnings on the way up would amplify them on the way down. A move back toward $3,000 gold would compress margins materially and likely de-rate the multiple simultaneously, a double hit. This is an unavoidable, structural feature of owning any mining equity, and it is why position sizing and entry discipline matter.

Risk 3 — Leadership transition and strategic uncertainty. The departure of long-time CEO Mark Bristow in early 2026 removed one of the most recognized operators in the industry, and the company is being run by an interim CEO while the board searches for a permanent successor. Leadership vacuums can slow decision-making and unsettle investors, and the concurrent strategic shifts — the pivot toward North American assets, an evaluation of a possible IPO of the North American gold business, and a new CFO — introduce execution uncertainty. A misstep in the leadership search, or strategic drift, could delay the very re-rating this thesis depends on.

Risk 4 — Project execution and cost inflation (secondary). The growth story leans on large, complex projects — Lumwana’s Super Pit and Reko Diq — that carry the usual mining risks of capital overruns, schedule slippage, and rising input costs. Reko Diq’s timeline has already been pushed out, with the project review extended to mid-2027 amid regional security concerns, deferring a meaningful chunk of the copper-growth narrative. Cost inflation across labor, energy, and equipment could also push AISC higher and erode the margin advantage if not managed.

—

7. Conclusion & Exit Plan

Investment rating: Buy. Barrick Mining offers a rare combination in today’s market: a genuinely cheap valuation (forward P/E under 9, the lowest price-to-book among senior gold peers), a fortress balance sheet with net cash, a covered and growing dividend, and a clear set of near-dated catalysts — all attached to a business earning the fattest margins in its history off a portfolio anchored by one of the best gold complexes on Earth. The market is discounting the stock for jurisdictional risk and leadership uncertainty that are real but, in the case of the biggest overhang (Mali), already resolving. That is the definition of an asymmetric setup.

Entry price range. The shares are attractive at current levels around $36–$38. Given the commodity-price sensitivity, a disciplined approach is to build a position in tranches rather than all at once — an initial position at the current price, with capacity to add on any gold-driven pullback toward the low-$30s, which would only improve an already-cheap entry multiple.

Exit conditions:
– Target achieved: Trim into strength as the shares approach the base-case fair value of $54 (roughly the analyst consensus), and consider taking further profit toward the bull-case $64 if gold holds above $4,000 and Loulo/copper execution stays on track.
– Fundamental break: Reduce or exit if the core thesis is invalidated — specifically, if a new jurisdictional dispute materially impairs a tier-one asset, if AISC inflates through the top of guidance without an offsetting gold move, or if the permanent-CEO appointment signals a strategy that abandons the capital-discipline pivot.
– Time-based: Reassess in 6–12 months, using the August 10, 2026 Q2 results and subsequent quarters to confirm that the Mali restart, cash-flow growth, and Lumwana progress are tracking to plan.

Item	Detail
Company	Barrick Mining Corporation (B)
Current Price	$36.95
Target Price	$54 (base) / $64 (bull)
Upside	+46% to +73%
Rating	Buy
Key Thesis	Cheapest senior gold major on book value, earning record margins off $4,000 gold, with the biggest overhang (Mali) now resolved
Main Risk	Jurisdictional/political risk and gold-price dependency

—

Disclaimer:

This content is general investment information provided to an indefinite/unspecified audience by a quasi-investment advisory business registered under Korea’s Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and is not personalized 1:1 investment advice tailored to any individual investor. This analysis is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation to invest. All investment decisions and their consequences rest solely with the investor. The estimates and assumptions in this report are as of the writing date (2026-08-03) and may not materialize depending on market conditions and geopolitical variables. Financial data used reflects sources such as company filings and analyst consensus, and the scenarios and price targets represent the author’s conservative assessment. All investments carry the risk of principal loss, and past performance or analytical track record does not guarantee future results. As of the writing date, the author does not hold a position in this stock. The author’s holdings and positions may change without prior notice depending on market conditions.