Alamos Gold (AGI) — Stock Analysis 2026 [4.1]

Analysis as of 15 September 2026. A point-in-time snapshot. Fundamentals come from Alamos Gold’s 2025 Annual Information Form and audited 2025 statements, the Q2 2026 interim statements, MD&A and results release (29 July 2026), the three-year guidance and the Island Gold District Expansion Study (3–4 February 2026) and its technical report. Market data: NYSE close on 14 September 2026 — $35.66 a share, 419.9 m fully diluted shares. Rating: ★★★★, Solid — Modestly undervalued (wide band) → re-rating candidate — the catalyst is the Phase 3+ shaft in Q1 2027 and a Young-Davidson 2027 guide that holds near plan. Market-implied gold deck ~$3,676/oz. Price deck: base gold $4,000/oz — the 3-month trailing average of $4,237/oz snapped to the fixed $3,000–5,000 grid — with every grid price run as a scenario (deep bear $3,000 / bear $3,500 / base $4,000 / bull $4,500 / deep bull $5,000); 5% real after-tax discount rate. All figures are US dollars unless marked C$. Refreshed on each annual report and material events. Prepared with AI assistance — see the disclaimer.

Alamos Gold is an intermediate gold producer with 15.9 million ounces of reserves booked at an $1,800 gold price, three growth projects with published economics and net cash. The thesis in one line: the best-documented organic growth pipeline in its peer group, priced at ~0.90× a risked net asset value. Why now: a June seismic event at Young-Davidson forced a 12% cut to 2026 production guidance and took the shares to a $27.83 close on 31 July; at $35.66 they have recovered most of that fall while the assets that carry the value stay on schedule. To screen Alamos against every listed gold producer, go to Metal Pilot.

1. Snapshot & thesis

Alamos Gold Inc. (TSX: AGI; NYSE: AGI) is an intermediate gold producer headquartered in Toronto with about 2,400 full-time employees, three operating mines — the Island Gold District and Young-Davidson in Ontario and the Mulatos District in Sonora, Mexico — and three growth projects: the Island Gold District’s Phase 3+ Shaft and IGD Expansion, Puerto Del Aire (PDA) at Mulatos, and Lynn Lake in Manitoba. By archetype it is a producer with a large, funded development pipeline, so the full rubric applies (Section 9) and the valuation runs sum-of-the-parts (Section 7). (AISC = all-in sustaining cost, excluding growth capital; koz / Moz = thousand / million ounces; 2P = proven and probable reserves; tpd = tonnes per day.)

Figure 1. Alamos Gold in numbers

Figure data: Alamos Gold audited 2025 financial statements (revenue), the Q2 2026 results release and interim financial statements (guidance, margin, cash, debt) and the 2025 Annual Information Form (reserves); market data per stockanalysis.com as of the NYSE close on 14 September 2026. Rating per Section 9, valuation read per Section 7.

Table 1. Alamos Gold in numbers

Source: Alamos Gold Q2 2026 results release , 29 July 2026, for guidance, the quarter’s realised price and AISC and the revised capital programme; the interim financial statements, 30 June 2026 for cash, equity securities, the drawn revolver (note 9) and the share and option count (note 10); the audited 2025 financial statements for revenue; the 2025 Annual Information Form for reserves and resources, prepared under NI 43-101 and CIM definitions; market data, 52-week range and consensus per stockanalysis.com , 14–15 Sep 2026. Cash margin = (realised price − AISC) ÷ realised price. Alamos reports measured and indicated resources exclusive of reserves, so the 5.5 Moz is additional to the 15.9 Moz. Net cash excludes $16.3 m of lease liabilities, whose payments sit inside AISC, and the $39.8 m of listed equity securities, which Section 7 carries as an investment; enterprise value is market capitalisation less that net cash. Fully diluted count per Section 7. Listed: Public (TSX: AGI / NYSE: AGI).

Thesis in brief. Bull: 15.9 Moz of reserves booked at $1,800/oz, under half the $4,000 base deck; a flagship whose underground reserve grades 10.61 g/t and whose expansion study puts it at 534 koz a year from 2028 at $1,025/oz; Lynn Lake behind it at 186 koz a year and $829/oz; a path toward ~1 Moz by 2030, funded from cash flow. Bear: a seismic event at Young-Davidson cut 2026 production guidance 12% and raised AISC guidance 18% in July; Lynn Lake’s capital estimate is up 48% on the 2023 study; and the growth is all ahead. The shares trade at ~0.90× a risked NAV. What tips it: Island Gold reaching 2,000 tpd underground by year-end and the shaft commissioning in Q1 2027. The full rating is in Section 9.

How to read this analysis: here for the verdict? The statcards above and the rating in Section 9 are the whole story. Want the evidence? Read Section 2 (the assets) through Section 7 (the valuation).

2. Assets & operations

Alamos sells into the strongest gold market on record, realising $4,504/oz in Q2 2026. For how gold is priced and why miners are a geared expression of the metal, see the Gold — A Complete Market Guide ; this section is about the company.

2.1 Portfolio overview & map

Three producing mines, three growth projects, two countries, and a reserve base that grew 32% in 2025.

Table 2. Asset base

Source: Alamos Gold 2025 Annual Information Form , “Proven and Probable Gold Mineral Reserves (as at December 31, 2025)”, p.70, prepared under NI 43-101 and CIM definitions, and the Lynn Lake plan parameters, p.68; 2026 guidance and mine-site AISC per the Q2 2026 results release , “2026 Guidance”, p.7 (revised 29 July 2026 from the 4 February guidance); PDA plan per the PDA development plan release (4 September 2024); the Island Gold District schedule per the IGD Expansion Study release (3 February 2026). Reserves were estimated at an assumed $1,800/oz gold price. Alamos reports measured and indicated resources exclusive of reserves — 5.48 Moz @ 1.44 g/t in total: Island Gold District 2.03 Moz, Young-Davidson 1.49 Moz, the Golden Arrow project near Young-Davidson 0.25 Moz, Mulatos District 0.83 Moz (of which PDA 0.27 Moz) and Lynn Lake 0.89 Moz — with a further 2.04 Moz inferred outside both (AIF p.70–71). Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. Group AISC includes corporate and administrative and share-based compensation costs that the mine-site figures exclude. Listing: every asset is wholly owned by Alamos Gold Inc. (Public, TSX: AGI / NYSE: AGI), the Mulatos District through its Mexican subsidiary Minas de Oro Nacional, S.A. de C.V.

Two facts matter most. Reserves rose 32% in 2025, from 12.0 Moz to 15.9 Moz net of divestitures, from exploration at the operating mines. And they are booked at $1,800/oz — 59% below August’s $4,411/oz average — so revision is more likely to add ounces than remove them. The Island Gold District holds 52% of reserves; every asset but the Mulatos District is in Canada.

2.2 Where the revenue and the value sit

Silver is a by-product credited against costs, so the metal split is almost all gold; the asset split is where the story sits.

Figure 2. Revenue by metal, 2025

Figure data: silver revenue of $17.6 m per the “Silver by-product credits” line of the 2025 MD&A AISC reconciliation (p.41), set against total operating revenues of $1,808.8 m in the audited 2025 financial statements (p.7); gold is the remainder, $1,791.2 m, consistent with 531,230 oz sold at $3,372/oz (MD&A p.6).

Figure 3. Revenue by segment, 2025

Figure data: segment note of the audited 2025 financial statements , “Operating revenues” by segment, p.40; corporate and other contributed −$45.0 m and is excluded from the ranking. Against 2024 (p.41), Island Gold District revenue rose 88% as the Magino mill was integrated, Young-Davidson rose 29% and the Mulatos District was flat.

The metal risk is pure gold and the asset risk is one district: the Island Gold District is 46% of revenue and about 58% of risked asset value (Table 16), Lynn Lake 0% and 11%, and Young-Davidson — the mine behind July’s cut — 30% of revenue but only 13% of value. The market spent July repricing the asset that matters least to NAV.

2.3 Island Gold District

The Island Gold District combines the high-grade Island Gold underground mine with the Magino open pit and mill, acquired with Argonaut Gold in July 2024 and held directly by Alamos Gold Inc. since Argonaut’s amalgamation on 1 January 2025 — two adjacent orebodies, one mill and an 8.28 Moz reserve.

Island Gold’s underground reserve grades 10.61 g/t, nearly six times the group average, against Magino’s 0.86 g/t. Q2 2026 production was a record 67,500 oz, on 1,550 tpd underground and 8,862 tpd at the mill, at a mine-site AISC of $1,715/oz. In July, 2026 guidance was narrowed from 290–330 koz to 290–310 koz and mine-site AISC guidance raised from $1,340–1,440 to $1,550–1,650/oz.

The encumbrances are royalties inside unit costs: a 3% NSR to OR Royalties on Lochalsh, 2% NSRs on the Goudreau properties, and at Magino a 3% NSR to Franco-Nevada and a 0.84% NSR to Indigenous partners. No stream.

Two expansions run through it. The Phase 3+ Shaft Expansion lifts underground mining from 1,200 to 2,400 tpd; $788 m of its $835 m budget was spent and the rest committed at 30 June, with commissioning in Q1 2027. The IGD Expansion takes the Magino mill to 20,000 tpd by Q1 2028, for 534 koz a year over ten years at a mine-site AISC of $1,025/oz on $542 m, 33% spent or committed. Its approvals are not yet in hand: current permits cover 2026 levels, and the expanded rates, waste storage and water management need Ontario’s environment, natural-resources and mines ministries. The 115 kV grid line awaits an Ontario Energy Board expropriation decision; the district runs on its 44 kV line and gas plant meanwhile.

The asset-level risk is narrow and dated: underground mining must reach 2,000 tpd by the end of 2026 for the shaft to deliver what the study assumes — currently running ahead of plan.

Sources for this subsection: royalties and permitting per the 2025 AIF , Island Gold District “Property Description” (p.35) and “Infrastructure, Permitting, and Compliance Activities” (p.46–47), and the 115 kV line (p.20); operating results, guidance and spend per the Q2 2026 results release (p.4, 7, 10) and Q2 2026 MD&A , Phase 3+ and IGD Expansion capital tables (p.18); study parameters per the IGD Expansion Study release , p.1–4.

2.4 Young-Davidson

Young-Davidson, near Matachewan in Ontario, is a mature underground mine with 2.98 Moz of reserves at 2.20 g/t, a 14-year reserve life and a 1.5% NSR to Triple Flag.

In June 2026 a seismic event at an active mining front cut access to the 9410 level and two higher-grade stopes supplying about 2,500 tpd; no one was injured. Mining is guided at about 5,000 tpd for the rest of 2026 against 7,132 tpd in Q2; production guidance fell from 155–175 koz to 100–115 koz and mine-site AISC guidance rose to $2,500–2,600/oz (about $3,300/oz in the second half).

It still generated $67.4 m of mine-site free cash flow in Q2. The risk is the durable post-event rate, unknown until the three-year guidance early in 2027. The nearby Golden Arrow project adds 0.25 Moz of M&I.

Sources: Q2 2026 results release , Young-Davidson operational and financial review (p.12–13) and “2026 Guidance” (p.7); royalty and Golden Arrow per the 2025 AIF , p.50–51 and p.70.

2.5 Mulatos District and Puerto Del Aire

The Mulatos District in Sonora, held through Minas de Oro Nacional, S.A. de C.V., is the low-cost, shortest-lived operation: Q2 production of 30,100 oz fell 12% year on year at a mine-site AISC of $1,132/oz, the portfolio’s lowest, as longer leach cycles delay ounces. No third-party royalty; Mexico’s 1.0% extraordinary mining duty sits in costs.

Its replacement is Puerto Del Aire (PDA), an underground deposit beside the Mulatos pit with 1.06 Moz of reserves at 5.45 g/t, approved on 29 January 2025, with its $165 m capital estimate unchanged and first gold due mid-2027. The plan’s schedule runs 86 koz in 2027, then 149, 147 and 126 koz, at a mine-site AISC of $1,003/oz.

The asset-level risk is jurisdictional: Mexico has tightened concession and permitting rules since 2023.

Sources: Q2 2026 results release , p.4 and p.14–15; PDA approval, capital, spend and plan per the Q2 2026 MD&A , p.22 and p.32, and the PDA development plan release ; royalties per the 2025 AIF , p.59, and the interim financial statements’ royalty table (note 5).

2.6 Lynn Lake

Lynn Lake in northern Manitoba carries 3.44 Moz of reserves at 1.25 g/t across four deposits. Its approvals are in hand: federal and Manitoba environmental approvals (6 March 2023), Impact Benefit Agreements with Marcel Colomb First Nation (June 2023) and Mathias Colomb Cree Nation (Q1 2025), the Closure Plan (January 2025) and the construction decision of 13 January 2025. Its one encumbrance is a capped third-party royalty on early Gordon-pit production, about US$9.9 m in total in the 2023 Feasibility Study cash flow (§22.7, p.339).

Table 3. Growth-project economics as published

Source: the IGD Expansion Study release (3 February 2026) and its NI 43-101 technical report (20 March 2026); the PDA development plan release (4 September 2024); Lynn Lake per the three-year guidance release (4 February 2026) and the 2025 AIF , p.68. These are study and plan estimates, not achieved results. Lynn Lake’s initial capital rose from $632 m in the 2023 Feasibility Study (2022 costing) to $937 m, reflecting a 13% mill-capacity increase to 9,000 tpd, three years of inflation and a longer construction timeline after the 2025 northern Manitoba wildfires; the Burnt Timber and Linkwood satellite deposits extend the combined mine life from 17 to 27 years in the February 2025 study.

$54.6 m was spent in H1 2026, leaving $816.4 m of the $871 m, with first gold in H1 2029; the company gives a first-ten-year average, not a ramp, so Section 7 builds its own. An $829/oz mine-site AISC over ten years is an exceptional asset — and its capital estimate has already risen 48%.

2.7 Other assets & the exploration pipeline

Beyond the reserves sit 5.48 Moz of M&I exclusive of reserves and 2.04 Moz inferred, including 1.06 Moz inferred at Island Gold at 11.51 g/t. Orford Mining (April 2024) brought the Qiqavik project in Quebec; Manitou Gold (May 2023) added ground around the Island Gold District.

In October 2025 Alamos sold its Turkish projects to Tümad Madencilik for $470 m ($157.3 m at closing, then $160 m and $150 m on the first two anniversaries, bank-guaranteed) and its Quartz Mountain option to Q-Gold Resources for up to $21 m and a 9.9% stake.

Sources: resources per the 2025 AIF , p.70–71, and acquisitions per its “Three-Year History”; disposals per the interim financial statements, 30 June 2026 , note 5 (p.9).

2.8 Group production, reserves & costs

Table 4. 2026 guidance — original, revised and half-year delivery

Source: Alamos Gold Q2 2026 results release , “2026 Guidance”, p.7, and the half-year figures on p.3–4. Guidance figures are management’s forward-looking estimates, not measured results. The cut is mostly Young-Davidson (155–175 koz to 100–115 koz), with smaller trims at the Mulatos District (125–145 koz to 120–135 koz) and the Island Gold District (290–330 koz to 290–310 koz). Growth capital was not raised.

History. Production grew from 380 koz in 2015 to 545 koz in 2025, stepping up with the Island Gold acquisition (November 2017) and the Magino integration (2024), with a dip in 2020 on lower grades at Mulatos and Young-Davidson.

Table 5. Group gold production, 2015–2025 (koz)

Source: Alamos Gold annual MD&As, “Gold production (ounces)” in the summary of operating and financial results: 2016 (2015–16), 2018 (2017–18), 2020 (2019–20), 2022 (2021–22), 2024 (2023–24) and 2025 (2025), p.4 of each. The 2015 figure includes Mulatos production before the July 2015 AuRico merger, as the 2016 MD&A presents it; 2017 includes Island Gold from its acquisition on 23 November 2017.

Figure 4. Group gold production, 2015–2025

Figure data: Table 5. The 2026 guidance of 510–560 koz and the company’s ~1 Moz 2030 target are plans, not results, and are stated in the text rather than charted.

Costs. Revised 2026 AISC of $1,775–1,875/oz is the peer median in a damaged year (Table 6); the studies put the two assets that dominate from 2028 at $1,025/oz and $829/oz.

Reserves and replacement. Reserves rose 32% to 15.9 Moz in 2025 after depletion and divestitures — a ~30-year life at the 2026 midpoint.

2.9 Peer positioning

The peer set behind the Section 9 scorecard is five listed gold producers with published 2026 guidance; none is in a pending takeover (Eldorado’s purchase of Foran closed in April 2026).

Table 6. Peer positioning — quality metrics

Source: each company’s 2026 guidance and latest reserve statement as published — Agnico Eagle (guidance reaffirmed with Q2 2026 results; reserves at 31 Dec 2025 per its February 2026 exploration update ); Kinross (18 Feb 2026 guidance; reserves at 31 Dec 2025); Northern Star (reserves at 31 Mar 2026; FY2026 actuals per its June 2026 Quarterly Activities Report , converted at A$1 = US$0.68); B2Gold (guidance narrowed with Q2 2026 results; attributable reserves per its reserves page , mostly at 31 Dec 2025); Eldorado Gold (19 Feb 2026 guidance; reserves at 30 Sep 2025 per its November 2025 statement ); Alamos per Table 2. Reserve life = 2P reserves ÷ the 2026 guidance midpoint (Northern Star: FY2026 production), all reserves under NI 43-101 or JORC. AISC definitions and reserve dates differ between issuers — Kinross guides in gold-equivalent ounces, B2Gold per ounce sold, and Northern Star’s cost is a full-year actual — so the comparison is indicative. Screen the full gold peer set on grade, cost, reserve life and stage at Metal Pilot.

Alamos is the smallest producer in the set and mid-pack on cost, but has the longest reserve life and the only growth funded from cash flow and published with per-project economics throughout. Agnico and Kinross are four to six times the size.

3. Financials & balance sheet

Table 7. Five-year financial summary (US$m unless stated, years ended 31 December)

Source: Alamos Gold audited consolidated financial statements — FY2025 (2025 and 2024), FY2024 (2023) and FY2022 (2022 and 2021): the statements of comprehensive income (p.7), financial position (p.6) and cash flows (p.9) and the earnings-per-share note; sustaining capital per the AISC reconciliations of the 2025 , 2024 and 2022 MD&As; 2020 revenue of $748.1 m for the 2021 growth rate per the 2022 MD&A . Cash margin = (revenue − mining and processing − royalties) ÷ revenue. Capital expenditure is the cash-flow statement’s mineral property, plant and equipment line plus capitalised interest; sustaining capital is the company’s non-GAAP figure, which from 2024 includes Magino finance-lease payments reported in financing, so the growth remainder is slightly understated. Free cash flow = operating cash flow − capital expenditure. Net cash excludes lease liabilities and listed equity securities, as Section 7 does. One basis, the statements as filed; 2026 is not shown because the year is incomplete — H1 2026 delivery is in Table 4.

Alamos more than doubled revenue while raising capital expenditure only half as fast, then stepped its 2026 programme up to $945–1,035 m, roughly double 2025, to build three things at once. 2026 free cash flow is thin by design: Q2 free cash flow was still $143.5 m, up 70%, on a $2,776/oz margin over AISC.

The three-statement read, on the red-flag framework of the Financial Metrics for Commodity Investing guide:

• Cash behind profit. Five-year operating cash flow of $2,584 m ran well ahead of net income of $1,351 m. The exception is 2025, where net income of $885.8 m carries a $218.8 m Türkiye impairment reversal and a $231.0 m gain on its sale against a $230.5 m derivative loss — read 2025 on cash flow, not EPS.
• Margin and capex. The cash margin widened from 51% to 67% over three years; sustaining capital ran $95–145 m a year while output grew from 457 to 545 koz.
• Free cash flow and dilution. Positive in four of five years (2022 was the La Yaqui Grande and Phase 3+ build); diluted shares rose 7.7% since 2021, mostly the 2024 Argonaut consideration, while revenue per diluted share doubled from $2.10 to $4.28.

Balance sheet. At 30 June 2026 Alamos held $636.9 m of cash and $39.8 m of listed equity against $200.0 m drawn on a $750 m revolver — net cash of $436.9 m — and about $1.2 bn of liquidity. The revolver, the only debt, matures on 20 February 2029, with covenants (interest cover ≥ 3.0×, net leverage ≤ 3.5×) a net-cash balance sheet does not test; the current ratio is 2.1×. Even at $3,000/oz gold, forward EBITDA would be about $1.2 bn (Table 24). Deferred sale consideration of $306.1 m (Tümad $299.1 m, bank-guaranteed; Q-Gold $7.0 m) sits against a decommissioning provision of $168.5 m.

The cost deck for Section 7. Guided 2026 total cash costs are $1,175–1,275/oz and AISC $1,775–1,875/oz, falling to $825–925/oz and $1,325–1,425/oz in 2027; mine-site AISC by asset is in Table 2. Grade is the swing term: Island Gold mined 9.15 g/t in Q2 against a 10.61 g/t reserve, and PDA’s 5.45 g/t replaces La Yaqui Grande’s 1.35 g/t from 2027. The price-linked lines are percentages — the district NSRs of 2–3.84%, Young-Davidson’s 1.5% and Mexico’s 1.0% duty — while Ontario’s 10% mining tax and Mexico’s 7.5% mining royalty sit in a guided ~34% effective tax rate against a 25% statutory income-tax rate. The tax-pool horizon is close: Canadian pools “are being utilized at a faster pace with more substantial taxes to be paid in Canada in 2027 and beyond”.

Hedging. No strategic gold hedge; Canadian dollar, peso and diesel exposure is hedged. Of 329,000 oz of forwards inherited with Argonaut, 50,000 oz at $1,821/oz remain, maturing in H1 2027 (a $113.5 m liability). Currency collars cover C$729 m and MXN 1,770 m for 2026–27. The $50 m December 2025 gold prepayment was fully delivered.

Capital returns. The dividend was raised 60% to $0.04 a quarter in February 2026; buybacks were $38.8 m in 2025 and $50 m in Q2 2026 (1,401,100 shares at $35.70) — modest against a $1 bn build.

Sources for these paragraphs: interim financial statements, 30 June 2026 — balance sheet (p.2), deferred consideration and royalties (note 5, p.9), derivatives (note 7, p.10–11), prepayment (note 8) and debt (note 9, p.13); Q2 2026 MD&A — cash taxes and tax pools (p.30); Q2 2026 results release — free cash flow, grades and shareholder returns (p.2–3, 10, 12); audited 2025 financial statements — decommissioning (note 17), income tax (note 18, p.34), liquidity table (p.30) and share repurchases (note 19); three-year guidance — effective tax rate and cost inflation. A five-year financial chart is not drawn; the single-series version would repeat Table 7.

4. Management, strategy & corporate structure

4.1 Management & governance

John A. McCluskey, President and CEO, has led the company since the July 2015 AuRico merger and is a director of the World Gold Council — one of the longest tenures in the peer set. J. Robert S. Prichard became Chair on 8 January 2025; he is President Emeritus of the University of Toronto and a former Chair of BMO Financial Group. Greg Fisher has been CFO since 1 May 2023, Luc Guimond COO since September 2022 (Young-Davidson general manager 2015–21); Chris Bostwick, FAusIMM (Technical Services, qualified person for Young-Davidson and PDA), Scott K. Parsons (Corporate Development and Investor Relations), John Fitzgerald (Projects) and Luis M. Chavez (Mexico) are Senior Vice Presidents.

Eleven directors were re-elected on 28 May 2026; Claire Kennedy, Audit Committee chair and a director since 2015, left on 31 August to become Consul General of Canada in Chicago, leaving ten. The five committees — Audit, Human Resources, Corporate Governance and Nominating, Technical and Sustainability, and Public Affairs — are chaired by Kennedy (successor not yet named), Monique Mercier (Bennett Jones, Innergex chair), David Fleck (First Avenue Investment Counsel), Serafino Tony Giardini (CEO of Trilogy Metals) and Prichard. The other directors are Alexander Christopher (formerly Teck Resources), Elaine Ellingham (CEO of Omai Gold Mining), Chana Martineau (CEO of Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation), Richard McCreary (formerly TD Securities) and Shaun Usmar (CEO of Vale Base Metals and founder of Triple Flag, holder of Young-Davidson’s 1.5% NSR — the one related interest worth noting).

Source: 2025 AIF , “Directors and Officers” (p.77–79); the 28 May 2026 annual-meeting results and the 31 August 2026 board release .

After the July guidance revision, Pomerantz LLP publicised an investigation on behalf of Alamos investors on 9, 14 and 16 July 2026; no claim has been filed and no provision disclosed.

4.2 Strategy & capital allocation

The stated strategy blends cash flow from operating mines with growth from expansions, exploration and development, targeting a 46% production increase by 2028 at lower costs and roughly 1 Moz a year by 2030.

The record supports it: Argonaut Gold (July 2024) brought the Magino mill that lifted Island Gold District revenue 88% in 2025; Orford Mining (April 2024) and Manitou Gold (May 2023) added ground; the October 2025 Türkiye sale for $470 million removed the only politically exposed jurisdiction; and exploration grew reserves 32% in one year.

The counter-evidence is Lynn Lake’s capital, up from $632 million to $937 million, and the 2026 guidance cut. The dated targets: Phase 3+ shaft Q1 2027, PDA first production mid-2027, Magino mill expansion Q1 2028, Lynn Lake first production H1 2029.

4.3 Ownership & corporate structure

Table 8. Capital structure and corporate events

Source: Alamos Gold 2025 Annual Information Form for the acquisitions, divestments and subsidiary; share count, options, buyback and debt per the interim financial statements, 30 June 2026 (notes 9 and 10). There are no strategic or cornerstone shareholders disclosed, no warrants and no convertible notes; Alamos owns 100% of all six assets in Table 2 with no joint-venture partner or streaming obligation. Third-party royalties are limited to NSRs held by OR Royalties and Franco-Nevada on parts of the Island Gold District, a 0.84% NSR to Indigenous partners at Magino and a 1.5% Triple Flag NSR at Young-Davidson; the Mulatos concessions carry none (AIF).

100% ownership of every mine and project, no partners, no streams, only modest NSRs, and no equity raised since the 2024 Argonaut consideration beyond small dividend-reinvestment issues — the growth from here does not dilute anyone.

5. ESG & sustainability

Table 9. ESG snapshot

Source: Alamos Gold Q2 2026 results release , “Environment, Social and Governance Summary Performance” (p.5) and the Young-Davidson review (p.12); the 2025 Annual Information Form — climate strategy and TCFD alignment (p.28), the 115 kV line (p.20), Island Gold District agreements (p.47), Lynn Lake agreements (p.14, 68) and community contributions (p.15–16). TRIFR = total recordable injury frequency rate; LTIFR = lost-time injury frequency rate.

The Indigenous commitments are structural rather than declaratory: agreements are in place with every group around the flagship, and Impact Benefit Agreements signed before construction make Lynn Lake’s schedule credible. The environmental flagship is less settled: the 115 kV line that would let the Magino gas plant go to standby is held up before the Ontario Energy Board. Safety is disclosed and respectable (Q2 TRIFR 1.33, one lost-time injury), and the June seismic event injured no one. The caveats: a 30% reduction by 2030 is a mid-pack ambition with no net-zero date, and the company is being sued by a Burge Lake cottage owner and seven Lynn Lake residents over a May 2025 fire (CBC News ).

What reaches the valuation. Until the Ontario Energy Board rules, the Island Gold District keeps paying for gas power. The Lynn Lake approvals are a schedule asset — one reason Section 7 carries it at 0.80× — while the fire litigation and June’s evacuation mark a fire-prone site where a longer evacuation would move first gold. None moves a star; together they sit behind Dim 9’s four stars rather than five.

6. Risks

Table 10. Risk register

Source: risk categories drawn from the Alamos Gold 2025 Annual Information Form risk factors (p.19–31) and the operational disclosures in the Q2 2026 results release ; the law-firm investigations per PRNewswire , July 2026. Likelihood and impact ratings are the author’s assessment on a 1–5 scale, not disclosed figures.

Figure 5. Risk matrix — likelihood against impact

Figure data: Table 10. Each point prints its likelihood × impact score; the shaded region is the high-likelihood, high-impact quadrant (likelihood ≥ 3.5 and impact ≥ 3.5). Ratings are the author’s assessment, not disclosed figures.

The register’s shape is the mirror image of the market’s July reaction. The highest-likelihood risk — Young-Davidson’s mining rate — sits on 13% of risked asset value, while the highest-impact risk sits on 58% and is currently running ahead of plan. That does not make Young-Davidson irrelevant; it makes the ~50% fall from the $55.41 52-week high to the July low a large response to a problem at the smallest of three producing assets — and the shares have since recovered about 28% off that low.

The two risks that would break the thesis. The first is the Island Gold District itself, with 58% of risked asset value and most of the growth. Two things must go right in sequence: 2,000 tpd underground by the end of 2026 so the shaft commissions in Q1 2027, and the expansion approvals — none yet in hand, none dated — ahead of the Q1 2028 mill expansion. A slip in either pushes the 534 koz-a-year case to the right, which is why Section 7 risks the expansion at 0.65×.

The second is capital. Lynn Lake’s estimate has already risen 48%, from $632 m in the 2023 Feasibility Study (Table 1-4, p.34) to $937 m, with $816.4 m still to spend through 2029 alongside PDA and the Magino mill. A second overrun would land on the balance sheet — manageable from $436.9 m of net cash and about $1.2 bn of liquidity, but paid for in buybacks.

What is not on the list. No strategic gold hedge and no stream; the last 50,000 oz of Argonaut forwards mature in H1 2027. Mexico is about a quarter of 2026 output and falls in value weight as PDA replaces the heap leach. The securities matter is an investigation, with no claim filed and no provision booked.

7. Valuation

Valuation as of 15 September 2026, in US dollars (Alamos reports in US dollars; the valuation is struck on the NYSE listing, no FX conversion). Horizon: spot fair value. Price deck: base gold $4,000/oz — the 3-month trailing average of $4,237/oz (June–August 2026), against a 6-month average of $4,479 and a 12-month average of $4,398, all LBMA monthly averages per the World Bank Pink Sheet to 31 August 2026 — with every grid price from $3,000 to $5,000/oz run as a scenario (deep bear $3,000 / bear $3,500 / base $4,000 / bull $4,500 / deep bull $5,000). The 3-month window is representative because the 6- and 12-month averages still carry the February 2026 peak of $5,020; it snaps to the $4,000 grid price. The Reuters poll’s 2027 average of $4,610/oz is an unweighted cross-check; no spot deck is carried. Silver is a by-product at 1.0% of 2025 revenue, credited inside cash costs and AISC: its base is $60/oz — the 3-month average of $63.63 (6- and 12-month $70.45 and $66.80, same series) snapped to the $40–80 silver grid — held in every column and not co-moved, as it sits well below a tenth of NAV; the guided costs and the IGD study carry their own silver decks, an immaterial difference. Discount rate 5% real, after tax — the precious-metals convention, sensitised 4–7%. Share price $35.66 (NYSE close, 14 September 2026); 418.6 m basic and 419.9 m fully diluted shares; balance sheet as of 30 June 2026.

Alamos is valued on the producer (mining) archetype, run as a sum-of-the-parts. The method is set out in The Commodity Investor, Part 11: How to Value Commodity Stocks ; this section applies it without re-teaching it. The blended fair value is $40.49 per share at the $4,000 base price, $30.36 at $3,500 and $48.65 at $4,500; each $500/oz step moves NAV per share by $7.64 (Table 17). The producing assets plus the equity bridge are worth $26.03 per share, the risked pipeline $9.70 and the resource beyond the plans $4.08.

What §7 starts from. The figures below set the study NPVs, the author-built mine plans, the tax bases, the resource tier and the bridge. Everything else §7 takes from a filing is in the register at §10.1 (Table 28).

Table 11. Load-bearing inputs — the filed figures the valuation moves on

Notes to Table 11

1. The $10,184 m is the Base Case Life of Mine Plan column of the same study table, printed beside the expansion case; it is the only price at which both are published.
2. The plan’s economics are “calculated starting January 1, 2025” (release p.3, note 1); §7.2 rolls the NPV to the balance-sheet date and adds back the capital already spent.
3. Mining taxes are deductible for income tax, so the combined statutory rates on cash margin are 32.5% (Ontario: 10% + 25% × 90%), 39.4% (Manitoba at the top of its scale: 17% + 27% × 83%) and 35.25% (Mexico: 7.5% + 30% × 92.5%). The 2025 statements print the Mexican extraordinary duty at 1.0% of revenue (mineral property note, “(iii) Royalties”, p.25), inside unit costs.

Source: the IGD Expansion Study release (3 February 2026); the PDA development plan release (4 September 2024); the three-year guidance release (4 February 2026); the Q2 2026 results release , MD&A and condensed interim consolidated financial statements (29–30 July 2026); the 2025 Annual Information Form and FY2025 financial statements ; the IGD technical report and the 2023 Lynn Lake technical report (report page numbers). Page numbers are those of each filed document as rendered on EDGAR. All figures in US dollars; Alamos reports in US dollars and the section carries no FX conversion. Reserves and resources are effective 31 December 2025, the balance sheet 30 June 2026 and guidance 29 July 2026 — the section’s three vintages, each printed with its row. The share price the section is read against ($35.66, 14 September 2026) is in the opening block, not here: it moves the rating, not the valuation. The full register — every figure §7 takes from outside this analysis — is Table 28 in §10.1.

7.1 Method selection

The weights are the producer default — NAV 50% / EV/EBITDA 30% / FCF-yield support 20% — without deviation: the pipeline is already inside the NAV, risked project by project, and the cash-flow reads are there because they cannot see it. The third slice is FCF-yield support because every line it needs is disclosed.

Table 12. Valuation method selection

Source: method-to-archetype mapping and the default weight set per The Commodity Investor, Part 11: How to Value Commodity Stocks , “The archetype is the unit of analysis” and “The valuation toolkit”; the producer default carried without deviation. Archetype per Section 1. Input families: intrinsic 50% (one method); cash-flow 50% (two methods, at the ceiling for two reads of the same cash flow, stated here); asset & capacity and transaction 0%. Target multiples are derived in §7.3 from the archetype anchors, not from a peer set.

7.2 Net asset value

Vehicle map. Every asset is held 100% through wholly-owned subsidiaries, with no joint-venture partner, listed subsidiary, stream or minority interest, so nothing inside one line can reappear in another; the royalties are charged once, inside unit costs.

Table 13. Vehicle map

Source: this analysis; ownership, subsidiaries and royalty agreements per the Alamos Gold 2025 Annual Information Form , “Intercorporate Relationships” and the Island Gold District, Young-Davidson and Mulatos District property descriptions; the Island Gold District closure obligation per the same AIF, “Infrastructure, Permitting and Compliance Activities” (p.47), and the study’s closure assumption per the IGD technical report , §22.1; the Lynn Lake royalty per the 2023 Lynn Lake Feasibility Study technical report , §4.7 (p.55) and §22.7 (p.339).

Tax basis and the pools. The two study rows (Island Gold District, PDA) carry their studies’ own tax schedules. The author-built rows take the statutory rate on cash margin, no depreciation shield (Table 11, note 3): Young-Davidson 32.5%, the Mulatos residual 35.25%, Lynn Lake 39.4% at the top of Manitoba’s scale. The FY2025 income-tax note shows $111.7 m of unrecognised losses, deductible differences and credits; the shield is declined, biasing NAV down by at most $111.7 m × 25% ÷ 419.9 m = $0.07 per share. The provision is bridged from the statements at $168.5 m less the Island Gold District’s $49.1 m, which its study already charges.

Stage risk is charged once, in the row risk weights, each read off the de-risking scale by its itemised milestone status (Section 2); the target P/NAV and the rate carry no second charge.

• IGD Expansion increment — 0.65×. Study complete with reserves, funded, 33% of the $542 m spent or committed; the expanded-rate approvals are outstanding (Section 2.3). “Study complete, unpermitted” reads 0.45–0.65×, taken at the ceiling for a funded brownfield expansion on a permitted site; the adjacent “permitted, funded, under construction” row at 0.75× would add $0.42 per share.
• Puerto Del Aire — 0.85×. Environmental approval received January 2025, capital funded and unchanged, construction under way, first gold mid-2027: the 0.75–0.90× band, taken high with commissioning under a year out on existing district infrastructure.
• Lynn Lake — 0.80×. Federal and provincial approvals (March 2023), both IBAs, closure plan and construction decision (January 2025), funded: the same band, taken low because first gold is H1 2029 and capital has already risen from $632 m to $937 m.

Funding. No equity raise is modelled: the $816.4 m of Lynn Lake capital to spend and the PDA and IGD programmes sit against $636.9 m of cash, $550 m undrawn and $299.1 m of Tümad receipts, and next-twelve-month free cash flow after all capital is positive at every grid price (§7.4); the share count holds at 419.9 m in every scenario.

The per-asset NPV build. One block per asset, before the model table, at one discount-rate treatment: 5% real. Both studies print NPVs at 0% and 5%, so the rate rows re-strike each on the flat-equivalent life those two figures imply (Figure 7, note 2).

Table 14. Per-asset NPV build — base case ($4,000/oz gold, 5% real)

Notes to Table 14

1. The study’s sensitivity table prints after-tax NPV5% at flat gold prices of $2,800, $3,600, $4,000, $4,500 and $5,000/oz (USD/CAD 0.74); the $3,000 and $3,500 grid prices interpolate between $2,800 and $3,600. The study’s headline $8,160 m is on a stepped deck falling to $3,200/oz and is not used.
2. The study is struck at the start of 2026; rolling it to the balance-sheet date and removing the half-year of district cash flow the balance sheet already holds keeps the NAV and the bridge on one date. The mine-site free cash flow is pre-tax, so the deduction slightly overstates what left the district.
3. The only price at which both the June 2025 base plan and the expansion case are published. Holding the split constant across the grid is an estimate.
4. Expanded-rate approvals outstanding per the AIF; funded; 33% of expansion capital committed. The band ceiling is argued in the stage-risk paragraph above.
5. Alamos will re-issue Young-Davidson’s mining rates and costs with its three-year guidance early in 2027; until then the February 2026 guidance is the only disclosed rate for 2027–28, and it gives no mine-site cost for those years, so the 2026 guidance midpoint is carried and labelled an estimate.
6. The plan’s own schedule puts PDA’s first-year (2027) gold production at 86 koz; the rest of the 2027 district guidance is the residual pad and pit.
7. The plan prints $269 m at $1,950/oz and $492 m at $2,500/oz; the slope is extended across the grid, as the plan’s own ±10% sensitivity is linear. The 2025 figure is the Mulatos District’s growth capital, which the MD&A attributes primarily to PDA; the add-back is at face, not compounded.
8. First production is guided to H1 2029; a half-year of the first-10-year average is the ramp. Discounting is end-year from 30 June 2026.
9. Years 11–25 carry the ounces and cost the life-of-mine totals leave after the first ten years: (3,000 − 1,860) koz ÷ 15 years; (3,000 koz × $1,039 − 1,860 koz × $829) ÷ 1,140 koz = $1,381.6/oz.
10. Lynn Lake’s H1 2026 growth capital was $54.6 m (Q2 2026 MD&A, p.32), leaving $95.4 m of the $150 m 2026 guidance midpoint for H2; 2027 and 2028 take the $380–410 m and $290–310 m guidance midpoints, and the $26.0 m left of the $871 m is placed in 2029, before first gold. Discounting is end-period from 30 June 2026.
11. Exclusive M&I is 34% of reserves. The factor sits just above the band floor: the replacement record argues up (reserves +32% in 2025 from mine exploration), but the M&I grades 1.44 g/t against a 1.87 g/t reserve, so an ounce converted is worth less than the in-plan average.

Source: this analysis, from the IGD Expansion Study release (3 February 2026) and its NI 43-101 technical report ; the three-year guidance (4 February 2026); the PDA development plan (4 September 2024); the Q2 2026 results release and MD&A (29 July 2026); reserves and resources per the 2025 AIF . Inferred resources (2.04 Moz) are carried at 0.0 and priced as optionality in §7.5. Rows are numbered in the first column and the count restarts in every block, so a Derived cell’s row 4 × row 5 points inside its own block and never across the table; the accent band names the block. Values computed on unrounded inputs.

Table 15. Per-asset model — base case ($4,000/oz gold, 5% real)

Source: this analysis, from the filings cited under Table 14. Every NPV in the last column reproduces from its block in Table 14; this table adds the stage, profile, cost, capital, tax and discounting inputs behind them.

Table 16. NAV build-up and equity bridge (base case — $4,000/oz, 5% real)

Source: this analysis; rows are numbered in the first column and run straight down the bridge — the memo lines beneath the result carry no number because nothing steps through them — and every balance-sheet line per the Alamos Gold condensed interim consolidated financial statements, 30 June 2026 (notes 4–10); the provision basis and tax pools per the FY2025 audited consolidated financial statements (notes 17, 18); corporate cost guidance per the three-year guidance release. No post-period financing, acquisition or disposal to bridge; the 1.40 m shares bought back in Q2 are already in the 30 June count. The tiers are printed to three decimals so they sum to the published NAV per share: 26.029 + 9.697 + 4.078 = 39.804 → $39.80 ($26.03, $9.70 and $4.08 to two decimals) — and the producing tier alone sits 27% below the $35.66 price, so the market pays for the operating assets plus about $9.63 of the $13.78 per share of risked development and resource value. Values computed on unrounded inputs.

Figure 6. NAV build-up and equity bridge

Figure data: Table 16. Equity NAV of $16,714.1 m equates to $39.80 per fully diluted share; the producing tier alone is $26.03. “PDA + Mulatos” groups the risked PDA NPV ($1,049.1 m) with the Mulatos residual ($181.8 m); “Cash & investments” groups net cash ($436.9 m) with the deferred sale consideration and listed stakes ($345.9 m); “Hedge & reclam.” groups the hedge mark ($109.2 m) with the bridged provision ($119.4 m).

Figure 7. NAV/share sensitivity — gold price × discount rate

		Gold price ($/oz)
		3,000	3,500	Base4,000	4,500	5,000
Discount rate	4%	$26.33	$34.54	$42.74	$50.94	$59.14
	5% (base)	$24.52	$32.16	$39.80	$47.44	$55.08
	7%	$21.43	$28.12	$34.81	$41.49	$48.18

Notes to Figure 7

1. Checksum — the $3,500 column at 5%: Island Gold District ($8,597.5 m study NPV + $212.3 m accretion − $157.9 m) = $8,651.9 m × (0.8321 + 0.1679 × 0.65) = $8,143.5 m; Young-Davidson 44.5 koz × $200 × 0.675 × 0.9759 + 165 koz × $1,720 × 0.675 × 9.3936 × 0.9759 = $1,762.0 m; Mulatos residual $149.6 m; PDA ($897.5 m × 1.0759 + $50.5 m) × 0.85 = $863.7 m; Lynn Lake $1,833.3 m × 0.80 = $1,466.6 m; resource 5.48 Moz × $843.4/oz × 0.30 = $1,386.6 m; enterprise NAV $13,772.0 m + $436.9 m − $84.2 m hedge − $119.4 m − $634.5 m − $211.0 m + $345.9 m = $13,505.7 m on unrounded values ÷ 419.9 m = $32.16.
2. Rate rows — the author-built rows, capitalised G&A and the resource row re-discount directly; the two study NPVs are re-struck on the flat-equivalent lives their own undiscounted and 5% figures imply — the Island Gold District 15.9 years ($18,024 m and $12,239 m at $4,500; ×1.075 at 4%, ×0.872 at 7%), PDA 12.7 years ($676 m and $492 m at $2,500; ×1.062 at 4%, ×0.892 at 7%) — and roll forward at the row’s rate. Risk weights are held; they move only in the scenarios (§7.6).
3. Cost — mine-site AISC +10% at the base price (the study rows moved by their own price slope times 10% of study AISC) takes NAV per share to $38.01 (−4.5%); a 10% higher gold price ($4,400) with costs following at half the rate (+5%) gives $45.02 (+13.1%), against $45.91 (+15.3%) on price alone.
4. FX — n/a for the valuation currency: Alamos reports in US dollars and the section is struck on the NYSE listing. The operating exposure is Canadian-dollar and peso costs; the FY2025 financial-risk note (note 13) prints a 10% move as $14.8 m (CAD) and $6.2 m (MXN) on monetary items only, and 2026–27 collars cover C$729 m and MXN 1,770 m.
5. Stage risk — n/a: no risked tranche exceeds a quarter of enterprise NAV (Lynn Lake 11.0%, IGD expansion 6.8%, PDA 6.2%). For reference, Lynn Lake one band lower (0.65×) gives $38.97 (−$0.84).
6. Schedule slip — Lynn Lake, the one development asset above a tenth of enterprise NAV (11.0%): first production and the remaining capital one year later, risk weight held, gives $39.56 (−$0.24). The milestone that would do it is mill commissioning, guided for H1 2029.
7. Second deck — silver, 1.0% of 2025 revenue, enters the rows only as a by-product credit inside cash costs and AISC (and, inside the Island Gold District study, at the study’s own US$50/oz in 2026–27 and US$38/oz after, technical report §22.1, p.356–357); its base is $60/oz, the $63.63 3-month average snapped to the silver grid, held in every column and not stepped, as it is under a tenth of enterprise NAV. No other commodity enters the rows.

Figure data: this analysis’ model (Tables 14–16), every cell recomputed at that column’s gold price and that row’s rate, never scaled. Price columns are the fixed gold grid, grid version 2026-09 ($3,000–5,000/oz); base case $4,000 at 5% real. A one-step ($500/oz) gold move shifts NAV per share by about ±$7.64, or ±19%; the deck sensitivity is tabulated in Table 17.

Deck sensitivity. The slope between grid prices, to move the valuation to any gold view; every row is linear across the grid because no row’s cash flow turns negative inside it.

Table 17. Deck sensitivity — value per $500/oz step of gold ($/share unless stated; base rate, risk weights and target multiples held)

Source: this analysis, Tables 14–16 and 24. % of base is each line’s one-step move divided by its own base-price value — a leverage read. ¹ The yield read floors at zero near $1,465/oz, below the grid. ² FCF per share after all capital crosses zero at about $2,880/oz, also below the grid. ³ The scenario blend steps unevenly because the discount rate and the risk weights move with each column. Every step is the difference between two recomputed grid prices of Figure 7. How to use it: start from the base-price values (NAV per share $39.80, blended fair value $40.49) and add or subtract the per-step figure for every $500/oz away from $4,000 — a flat $4,200/oz gives NAV per share of about $42.86 and a held-multiple blend of about $43.47; for a reading that also moves the rate and the risk weights, use the scenario columns of Table 24.

P/NAV price map (unweighted). Figure 7’s 5% row at the producer’s five fixed P/NAV levels — the share price each implies at every grid price; no weight, no current-price column (the market-implied deck in §7.5 places $35.66).

Table 18. P/NAV price map — share price implied by each P/NAV level at each grid price ($/share)

Source: this analysis; each cell is the Figure 7 base-rate NAV per share at that column’s gold price (24.52 / 32.16 / 39.80 / 47.44 / 55.08) × the row’s P/NAV, risk weights held. The levels are the fixed producer set, so two gold producers read column-for-column. Alamos’s 1.08× target, derived in §7.3, reads $42.99 at the base price, between the 1.00× and 1.25× levels. Parity at the base price is $39.80.

7.3 Relative valuation

At $35.66 and 418.6 m basic shares, the market capitalisation is $14,926.9 m and enterprise value $14,490.0 m (net cash as in §7.2, leases in the rows). Each target is the producer anchor moved by the Section 9 scorecard; no peer multiples enter. Forward means the next twelve months from 15 September: 3.5 months of revised 2026 guidance and 8.5 months of 2027 guidance, at midpoints; 2026 alone, a guided trough, is a memo. The $4,000 base sits 51% above gold’s five-year average of $2,645/oz (September 2021–August 2026, World Bank Pink Sheet), so the targets are held at mid-cycle in every scenario and only the deck moves.

Table 19. Target-multiple driver line (one line, applied to every multiple)

Source: this analysis; each term is tied to one scored dimension, capped at ±10%, and no fact is charged under two labels, per the valuation guide linked in §7, “The valuation toolkit”. Dimensions 4, 7, 8 and 9 carry no term: growth is already priced project by project in the NAV, and jurisdiction, scored ★★★★ across Ontario, Manitoba and Sonora, carries no premium in the 5% rate and no term here. The line is printed once and reused for every multiple:

Target P/NAV = 1.00× anchor × (1 + 0.08) = 1.080× → 1.08× · Target EV/EBITDA = 7.0× anchor × 1.08 = 7.56× → 7.6× · Target FCF yield = 7.0% anchor ÷ 1.08 = 6.48% → 6.5% (a premium to value is a lower yield demanded). The rounded figures are the ones used in every table below.

Table 20. Forward EBITDA build — the next twelve months at the base price

Source: this analysis; guidance per the Q2 2026 results release (29 July 2026) and the three-year guidance (4 February 2026). Rows are numbered in the first column and run straight down the build. Volume ties to guidance with nothing added; the 2026 slice pro-rates the full-year midpoint, a simplification — the second half implied by guidance (about 164 koz at about $1,186/oz) would add roughly $0.29 to the blend. Cost basis: total cash cost for EBITDA, mine-site AISC for the NAV rows — the gap is sustaining capital and site overhead, carried in the memo line. For scale, H1 2026 adjusted EBITDA was $807.0 m at a $4,660/oz realised price.

Table 21. Relative valuation — implied value per share (base case)

Source: this analysis; anchors per the valuation guide linked in §7, “The valuation toolkit” (producer: P/NAV 1.00×, EV/EBITDA 7.0×). The implied EV crosses every bridge line the NAV charges except corporate G&A, which EBITDA already carries, and deducts the whole $168.5 m provision, because EBITDA carries no closure cost. Values computed on unrounded inputs (42.988 → 42.99; 34.697 → 34.70). To screen the same multiples across every listed gold producer, run the Metal Pilot gold dataset.

The two reads sit $8.29 apart; the gap is the pipeline, which forward EBITDA barely sees and the NAV values project by project.

7.4 FCF-yield support

The third weighted read capitalises next-twelve-month free cash flow before growth capital at the producer yield anchor moved by the same driver line.

Table 22. FCF-yield support build — the next twelve months at the base price

Source: this analysis; guidance per the Q2 2026 results release and the three-year guidance; rows run straight down the build, the memo rows continuing the count; FY2025 amortization of $209.7 m per the FY2025 statements (statement of comprehensive income, p.7), the latest reported year. Growth capital is excluded from the valued figure by construction — the pipeline’s value is what the NAV leg carries.

The read lands at $42.92, $2.43 above the blend, lifted by 2027’s lower unit costs.

7.5 Cross-checks

Table 23. Cross-checks — reported, reconciled, never weighted

Source: this analysis; the implied deck solved on the Tables 14–22 model; gold’s monthly averages, their five-year high and low included, per the World Bank Pink Sheet historical data and the September 2026 Pink Sheet ; EV/EBITDA history per S&P Global Market Intelligence via stockanalysis.com , read 15 Sep 2026; reserves per the AIF; deals per the Gold Fields , Coeur , Regis and Equinox–Orla releases, EV computed from the offer terms and the targets’ last balance sheets; consensus per stockanalysis.com , 15 Sep 2026; poll deck per Reuters via Kitco , 28 July 2026.

7.6 Scenarios & fair value

Every weighted method is re-run in every column. The rate steps out to 7% and 9% on the downside and holds at 5% on the upside; the project risk weights move inside their bands; the targets are held in every column (the base sits 51% above the five-year average), so the held-multiple memo equals the blend. The downside columns are the Section 6 bear case: gold toward $3,000 while Lynn Lake is being built and Young-Davidson’s rate is unresolved.

Table 24. Scenarios & fair value — inputs, value per method and the blend by grid price ($/share)

Source: this analysis; weights per §7.1 (the producer default); scenario names by distance from the base price. Base blend on a calculator: 0.50 × 42.988 + 0.30 × 34.697 + 0.20 × 42.916 = 21.494 + 10.409 + 8.583 = 40.486 → $40.49. Inputs behind the rows, by column: hedge mark $59.2 m / $84.2 m / $109.2 m / $134.2 m / $159.2 m; IGD expansion risk weight 0.55× / 0.60× / 0.65× / 0.65× / 0.65×; PDA 0.80× / 0.80× / 0.85× / 0.90× / 0.90×; Lynn Lake 0.75× / 0.75× / 0.80× / 0.85× / 0.90×; resource factor 0.25× / 0.25× / 0.30× / 0.35× / 0.40×; capitalised G&A $469.9 m / $542.6 m / $634.5 m / $634.5 m / $634.5 m; the targets 1.08× · 7.6× · 6.5% in every column; forward EBITDA $1,233.6 m / $1,556.0 m / $1,878.4 m / $2,200.8 m / $2,523.2 m; FCF before growth $736.1 m / $953.7 m / $1,171.4 m / $1,389.0 m / $1,606.6 m. The FCF per share row re-runs Table 22’s bridge at each price, cash tax recomputed and $625.8 m of growth capital and $60.0 m of capitalised exploration held. Adding the 0.45% dividend yield, the implied total return at the base is about +14.0% — reported, not rated. Illustrative scenarios, not forecasts.

Figure 8. Value per share by method and scenario

		Scenario (gold price)
		Deep Bear$3,000	Bear$3,500	Base$4,000	Bull$4,500	Deep Bull$5,000
Method	SOTP NAV × 1.08 (50%)	$19.68(−54%)	$29.39(−32%)	$42.99(base)	$52.66(+23%)	$62.59(+46%)
	EV/EBITDA 7.6× (30%)	$23.15(−33%)	$28.92(−17%)	$34.70(base)	$40.47(+17%)	$46.25(+33%)
	FCF-yield 6.5% (20%)	$26.97(−37%)	$34.94(−19%)	$42.92(base)	$50.89(+19%)	$58.86(+37%)
	Blended fair value	$22.18(−45%)	$30.36(−25%)	$40.49(base)	$48.65(+20%)	$56.94(+41%)

Source: this analysis; each cell recomputed at its column’s deck, rate and risk weights (Table 24); shading ranked 0–9 across the whole grid. Current share price $35.66 (14 Sep 2026); market-implied deck ~$3,676/oz. The bracketed figure under each value is its change against the same row’s base-case value.

Conclusion. The blended base-case fair value is $40.49, inside a $22.18 (Deep Bear, $3,000) – $56.94 (Deep Bull, $5,000) range, against a $35.66 price — an implied +13.5%, Modestly undervalued (wide band), the qualifier earned because the Deep Bear blend sits 38% below the price. Forward free cash flow after all capital is $485.5 m, a 3.3% yield on the $14,926.9 m market capitalisation (7.8% before growth capital and capitalised exploration). Rating-flip prices: down into Fairly valued below ~$3,915/oz (−2.1% from the base price), up into Undervalued above ~$4,394/oz (+9.9%). The assumption that drives the downside is Young-Davidson’s durable rate: each 10 koz a year below its 165 koz 2027 guidance takes $0.42 off the blend, and below about 135 koz the read falls to Fairly valued (Table 25, field 11). The NAV anchors the blend; the $8.29 gap to EV/EBITDA is the pipeline (§7.3). The market-implied deck of ~$3,676/oz says the price discounts gold about one step below the base, and the $26.03 producing tier says the market pays about 70% of the risked development and resource value on top.

Table 25. Assumptions box

Source: this analysis. Values per share to two decimals and multiples to two significant figures, computed on unrounded inputs and rounded half-up.

8. Near-term catalysts (1–3 years)

Table 26. Near-term catalysts

Source: Alamos Gold Q2 2026 results release (p.7–10) and MD&A for project timing and the Young-Davidson guidance date; the three-year guidance (p.7) for the capital step-down; the interim financial statements (note 5) for the Tümad schedule; the 2025 Annual Information Form for Lynn Lake and the expansion approvals. All timing is company guidance, not a guarantee. The reserve-restatement and free-cash-flow inferences are the author’s.

There is a dated, checkable event roughly every two quarters between now and 2029.

The first two catalysts — 2,000 tpd underground by year-end and the shaft in Q1 2027 — decide whether the Island Gold District’s study case starts on time, and matter more than everything after them. Young-Davidson’s early-2027 guidance can cut either way. From 2027 PDA’s first gold, the Tümad instalments and the guided capital step-down turn a build programme into free cash flow.

The swing factor is execution at the Island Gold District, not the gold price: none of the ten catalysts needs gold above the $4,000 base deck, but four of them sit in that one district.

9. Rating & verdict

Alamos is scored on the same nine dimensions as every company analysis on this blog, against the Section 2.9 peer set, on the producer reference weighting: five dimensions at 15%, four at 6.25%.

Table 27. Scorecard rationale

Source: each row cites its evidence in this analysis; peer references are the set declared in Section 2.9.

Weighted average: 0.75 + 0.60 + 0.60 + 0.60 + 0.45 + 0.3125 + 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 = 4.06/5 → ★★★★, Solid.

The two-axis verdict. Composite quality ★★★★ (Solid); value read Modestly undervalued (wide band) as of 15 September 2026 — a blended fair value of $40.49 against $35.66, an implied +13.5%, and a market-implied gold deck of ~$3,676/oz against the $4,000 base; verdict: Re-rating candidate — the catalyst is the Phase 3+ shaft in Q1 2027 and a Young-Davidson 2027 guide that holds near plan. The target multiples in Section 7 sit 8% above the producer anchors (1.08× P/NAV, 7.6× EV/EBITDA, 6.5% FCF yield), carried by the ★★★★★ reserve record, the balance sheet, capital allocation and asset quality, and trimmed by the ★★★ cost position.

The bull case: at a $4,000/oz deck, below the 3-, 6- and 12-month gold averages, the risked sum of the parts is $39.80 against $35.66, and the next twelve months’ cash flow supports the NAV. The bear case: one seismic event took 12% of a year’s output, the second build is 48% over its feasibility estimate, and the read sits 2% of gold price above the Fairly valued boundary.

The specific thing that tips it is the pair of dated checks in early 2027: Island Gold’s shaft commissioning and Young-Davidson’s re-set guidance. Both on plan, and the 0.90× P/NAV can migrate toward the 1.08× target; Young-Davidson below about 135 koz a year, and the read falls back to fair.

To rank Alamos against every listed gold producer on the same nine dimensions — grade, AISC, reserve life, growth stage and P/NAV — screen the sector on Metal Pilot.

10. Sources, methodology & disclaimer

10.1 Sources, methodology & data vintage

Company filings. The Q2 2026 interim statements , MD&A and results release ; the FY2025 audited statements and MD&A ; the 2025 AIF ; the three-year guidance ; the Young-Davidson update , AGM results and board change ; for the histories, the FY2024 and FY2022 statements and the 2016 , 2018 , 2020 , 2022 and 2024 MD&As.

Technical reports and studies. The IGD Expansion Study release and technical report ; the 2023 Lynn Lake technical report and February 2025 Burnt Timber and Linkwood study ; the PDA development plan ; the 2023 Mulatos technical report .

Market, metal-price, peer and legal sources. stockanalysis.com , the Bank of Canada , the World Bank Pink Sheet and the Reuters poll ; peer releases as linked under Table 6 and deals under Table 23; PRNewswire and CBC News .

Methodology. Durable structure (reserves, grade, life, ownership) is kept apart from the dated market layer. Data as of 15 September 2026: market data at the 14 September close ($35.66), reserves at 31 December 2025, statement notes FY2025, balance sheet 30 June 2026; IFRS, US dollars, M&I exclusive of reserves. Scorecard weights follow the producer reference case. Risk weights, the resource factor, the Lynn Lake ramp and Young-Davidson’s cost from 2027 are author estimates; where filings disagreed, the later one was used. The asset map is not drawn — Table 2 carries the same read. Documents that would close the open gaps (Table 25, field 11): a Lynn Lake technical report at the $937 m estimate and the early-2027 Young-Davidson guidance. Update cadence: each annual report and material events.

Re-run log. 15 September 2026: market data refreshed; valuation rebuilt on the 30 June 2026 balance sheet; read Fairly valued (wide band). 24 September 2026: re-aligned to the current template on the same as-of date; forward year moved to the next twelve months, statutory tax bases, PDA rolled forward and re-struck at other rates, the Island Gold District closure charged once, capitalised exploration deducted and silver based at $60 — blend $35.03 → $40.49, implied return −1.8% → +13.5%, read Modestly undervalued (wide band).

The full input register. Every figure Section 7 takes from a filing, a study or a market series, once, by document, with the table that uses it and its address — the long form of Table 11. The arithmetic and judgements are in Tables 14–16 and 20–22, marked Derived, Input or Estimate.

Table 28. Full source register — every figure §7 takes from a filing or a market series

Notes to Table 28

1. The study’s sensitivity prints after-tax NPV5% at flat prices of $2,800, $3,600, $4,000, $4,500 and $5,000/oz at a USD/CAD of 0.74; the $3,000 and $3,500 grid prices of this section interpolate between $2,800 and $3,600, an author step marked as one in Table 14.
2. The plan prints two price points — its $1,950/oz base case and a $2,500/oz case; the slope between them is extended across the grid in Table 14, and the NPV is rolled from its 1 January 2025 valuation date to 30 June 2026.

Source: the IGD Expansion Study release ; the PDA development plan release ; the three-year guidance ; the Q2 2026 results release and MD&A ; the 2025 Annual Information Form ; the interim financial statements, 30 June 2026 and the FY2025 financial statements and MD&A ; the IGD technical report (page numbers as printed in the report) and the 2023 Lynn Lake technical report ; market and price series per stockanalysis.com , the World Bank Pink Sheet historical data , the Reuters analyst poll and the Bank of Canada. Page numbers are those of each document as rendered on EDGAR; every filed row was re-read against the copy held for this post. All figures in US dollars unless marked C$. The register is Section 7’s input side in full — Table 11 carries the inputs the answer actually moves on; figures used only in Sections 1–6 are not repeated here.

Provenance: Alamos Gold Inc. — Annual Information Form — 2025.

10.2 Disclaimer & disclosure

This analysis is for informational purposes only and is not investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security. It is a point-in-time snapshot as of 15 September 2026: the share price, market capitalisation, enterprise value, multiples and valuation read all move. Reserve, resource, study and forecast figures are estimates, prepared on the codes and bases stated beside each table, and study economics are not achieved results. The Quality × Value verdict is an analytical read, never an instruction to the reader. This report was prepared with AI assistance; figures were sourced from primary filings and reviewed, but readers should verify every number against the original documents before acting on it. The author holds no position in Alamos Gold Inc. or in any company named here. Please do your own research and consult a licensed financial adviser.