Mosaic (MOS) — Stock Analysis 2026 [3.4]

Analysis as of 25 August 2026. A point-in-time snapshot, not an evergreen guide. Fundamentals come from Mosaic’s 2025 Form 10-K (year ended 31 December 2025) and its full-year 2025 results released 24 February 2026. Market data is as of the NYSE close on 24 August 2026 ($24.39). Rating: ★★★½, Solid — Modestly undervalued (wide band) → re-rating candidate: cheap, and the catalyst is free-cash-flow recovery. Price deck: the model’s swing input is Mosaic’s realised potash (MOP) net selling price, on a US$50/t grid — base US$250/t, bear US$200/t, deep bear US$150/t (the reversion case), bull US$300/t, deep bull US$350/t; a group target EV/EBITDA of 6.0× anchors the relative work. All figures are US dollars — Mosaic reports in USD. Refreshed on each annual report and on material events. For information only, prepared with AI assistance — see the disclaimer at the end.

Mosaic is the world’s second-largest potash producer and one of its three largest phosphate producers — a pure-play crop-nutrient miner, without the retail arm that steadies its larger rival Nutrien. It trades at roughly 5.3× EBITDA, 14× earnings and a 3.6% dividend yield — a discount to the sector that reflects real issues: a capital-hungry phosphate business, large environmental liabilities, meaningful debt, and free cash flow that went negative in 2025. The thesis in one line: a genuinely cheap, higher-beta way to own the same fertilizer cycle as Nutrien, where the sum-of-the-parts sits above the price but the equity is levered enough that the discount is partly earned. Why look now: 2025 delivered record potash output and a 65% jump in Brazil earnings, management is selling non-core mines (Carlsbad, Taquari, Patos de Minas), and the swing factor — phosphate capital spending — is expected to normalise, which would turn negative free cash flow positive. To screen Mosaic against every listed fertilizer and mining name on production, reserves, cost and value, go to Metal Pilot.

1. Snapshot & thesis

The Mosaic Company (NYSE: MOS) is a diversified crop-nutrient major headquartered in Tampa, Florida, mining potash in Canada and the US and phosphate in the US, Peru and Brazil, with a large Brazilian distribution business. Its three segments are Potash (three Saskatchewan mines plus one in New Mexico, being sold), Phosphates (Florida rock-and-processing plus a 75% interest in Peru’s Miski Mayo) and Mosaic Fertilizantes (Brazilian phosphate mining, production and distribution). By archetype it is a diversified major: no single segment clears half of enterprise value, so the full nine-dimension rubric applies (Section 9) and the valuation runs sum-of-the-parts (Section 7). (Potash reserves are stated in Mt = million tonnes of ore; K₂O = potassium oxide grade; P₂O₅ = phosphate grade; MOP = muriate of potash; net selling price = a mine/plant-gate netback; adjusted EBITDA is the company’s non-GAAP measure; ARO = asset-retirement obligation, the future cost of closing mines and gypsum stacks.)

Figure 1. Mosaic in numbers

Table 1. Mosaic in numbers

Source: Mosaic Q4/full-year 2025 results (24 Feb 2026); Mosaic 2025 Form 10-K ; share price and market capitalisation from stockanalysis.com , 24 Aug 2026. Enterprise value is author-derived.

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).

The thesis in brief. The bull case is value: a genuinely cheap stock — 5.3× EBITDA against a sector that trades 6–8× — with world-class Saskatchewan potash (Esterhazy, Belle Plaine), record 2025 potash volumes, a Brazilian business whose earnings jumped 65%, and a sum-of-the-parts above the price. The bear case is why it is cheap: phosphate is capital-hungry and margin-cyclical, environmental (gypstack/ARO) liabilities are large, net debt is ~2.0× and rising, and free cash flow was negative $535 million in 2025 as capex spiked. What tips it is free-cash-flow recovery and the potash netback: as phosphate capital normalises and potash margins hold, the negative FCF turns positive and the discount to the parts closes. See Section 9 for the full rating.

2. Assets & operations

Mosaic sits alongside Nutrien at the centre of the potash market — covered in full in the Potash — A Complete Market Guide — and is additionally a top-three producer in phosphate, a more fragmented, more cyclical market. It is the pure-play counterpart to its larger rival: for the retail-anchored, higher-quality version of the same cycle, see the Nutrien (NTR) analysis . This section spends its words on Mosaic’s own assets.

2.1 Portfolio overview & map

Mosaic’s value is split between a high-quality Saskatchewan potash book and a larger but lower-quality phosphate footprint spread across Florida, Peru and Brazil, with the Brazilian distribution business bolted on top. The upstream mines are wholly owned except Miski Mayo (75%).

Table 2. Mosaic asset portfolio (2025)

Source: Mosaic 2025 Form 10-K (reserves proven & probable under S-K 1300, effective 31 December 2025) and the full-year 2025 results . Mosaic is publicly listed (Public, NYSE: MOS); every mine is wholly owned except Miski Mayo (75%). Reserve and grade figures are estimates on the S-K 1300 code and effective date stated.

Concentration. Mosaic’s quality is concentrated in Saskatchewan potash — Esterhazy alone carries 476 Mt of proven and probable ore and mined 15.5 Mt in 2025, and Belle Plaine another 639 Mt — while its tonnage and its capital intensity are concentrated in phosphate, where the Florida rock base is depleting (which is why sustaining capex is high) and the Brazilian assets are numerous but individually small. The three segments are roughly balanced on EBITDA (Potash ~$1.2 bn, Phosphates ~$0.9 bn, Fertilizantes ~$0.6 bn), so no single asset dominates the way Nutrien’s potash does. A proportional-symbol asset map would show a potash cluster in Saskatchewan and a phosphate scatter across Florida, Peru and Brazil — that read is carried by the table and this paragraph, not drawn (Section 10.1).

2.2 Revenue split — by segment & by earnings

Like Nutrien, Mosaic’s revenue and earnings mixes disagree — but for a different reason. On revenue, the Brazilian distribution business (Mosaic Fertilizantes) and Phosphates lead, because both turn over large volumes of lower-margin product. On adjusted EBITDA, Potash leads, because that is where the low-cost Saskatchewan tonnes and the fattest margins sit. Reading the two together shows why the stock is valued the way it is.

Figure 2. Mosaic revenue by segment, 2025 (US$ bn)

Figure 3. Mosaic adjusted EBITDA by segment, 2025 (US$ bn)

Source for Figures 2 and 3: Mosaic full-year 2025 results ; segment revenue shares are author estimates from segment disclosures.

Potash earns ~40% of segment EBITDA on ~22% of revenue; Phosphates and Fertilizantes together earn the rest on ~78% of revenue. That is the whole valuation problem in one picture: a high-quality potash core, plus a large, lower-margin, capital-hungry phosphate-and-distribution business that the market discounts — which is exactly what a sum-of-the-parts exists to separate (Section 7).

2.3 Potash — the quality core

Potash is Mosaic’s highest-quality business and its biggest single EBITDA contributor ($1.18 billion in 2025, up 25%). It operates three Saskatchewan mines — Esterhazy (underground; the world’s largest potash mine, 476 Mt of proven and probable ore at 20.8% K₂O, 15.5 Mt mined in 2025), Belle Plaine (Mosaic’s only solution mine, 639 Mt at 19.3% K₂O, a record 11.0 Mt of ore in 2025) and Colonsay (262 Mt at 26.5% K₂O, run as swing capacity) — plus Carlsbad in New Mexico, which is being sold for ~$30 million. Finished potash production of 8.5 Mt in 2025 was an eight-year high, and international sales through Canpotex — the export joint venture Mosaic shares with Nutrien, in which Mosaic holds a 35.9% entitlement — reached a record 5.5 Mt. Saskatchewan potash sits in the lowest global cost quartile, and Mosaic’s potash gross margin per tonne rose to $97 in 2025 from $74 in 2024 as prices firmed. The asset-level risk is the MOP price: a US$50/t move in the potash netback swings potash EBITDA by roughly US$450 million (Section 7).

2.4 Phosphates — the capital-hungry cyclical

Phosphates is the segment that both defines Mosaic and holds its multiple down. It comprises the Florida rock-and-processing complex (96 Mt of proven and probable rock at 27% P₂O₅, 9.5 Mt of rock in 2025) and a 75% interest in the Miski Mayo mine in Peru (5.1 Mt of rock in 2025). The segment earned $917 million of adjusted EBITDA in 2025, but the operating trend is the concern: phosphate gross margin per tonne fell to $74 from $92, the fourth quarter posted an operating loss, and the Florida rock base is depleting — which forces heavy sustaining capital into new mining areas, clay settling areas and, above all, phosphogypsum-stack management. This is the single biggest driver of Mosaic’s negative 2025 free cash flow and its large asset-retirement obligations. Phosphate is a genuine, cash-generative business, but it is mid-cost, cyclical and capital-intensive — the opposite of the potash core, and the reason the group trades at a discount.

2.5 Mosaic Fertilizantes & the pipeline — the Brazil engine

Mosaic Fertilizantes is the Brazilian phosphate-mining, production and distribution business, and it was the standout of 2025: adjusted EBITDA jumped 65% to $567 million on operating earnings up 16% to $277 million, as blended rock costs fell to $97 per tonne and Brazilian demand held. It runs five phosphate mines in Brazil (Tapira, Catalão, Cajati, Araxá/Patrocínio and, until its 2025 sale, Patos de Minas) feeding a large distribution network, plus a 62% interest in Fospar. The development pipeline elsewhere is modest: the Mosaic Biosciences platform (biological fertilizer complements) is the main growth optionality, alongside potash and Brazilian brownfield work. There is no transformational greenfield project — capital is going into sustaining the phosphate base, not expanding it. The segment’s risk is Brazilian macro and foreign-exchange (the real), which Mosaic partly hedges (Section 3).

2.6 Group production, reserves & costs

At the group level Mosaic is a mature, cyclical, capital-intensive producer whose earnings swing with fertilizer prices. Group adjusted EBITDA — the clearest single picture of the business — ran from ~$3.6 billion in 2021 to a record ~$5.9 billion at the 2022 price peak, then fell to ~$2.2–2.4 billion as fertilizer prices reverted. The 2025 figure of $2.42 billion sits near what looks like a mid-cycle level, which matters for the valuation: 2025 earnings are close to normal, not a trough to be discounted.

Figure 4. Mosaic adjusted EBITDA by year (US$ bn)

Source: Mosaic annual reports and full-year 2025 results . The 2022 peak reflects the post-invasion fertilizer spike; 2021–2023 figures are approximate. 2024–2025 approximate a mid-cycle level.

2.7 Peer positioning

Mosaic’s peer set is the same small group of large listed fertilizer producers used across this series: Nutrien (NYSE: NTR) — the larger, retail-anchored potash leader and Mosaic’s Canpotex partner; CF Industries (NYSE: CF) — the North American nitrogen pure-play; ICL Group (NYSE: ICL) — potash, phosphate and specialty products; and K+S (XETRA: SDF) — the German potash producer. None is currently in a pending acquisition or merger. Mosaic is the phosphate leader of the group and the #2 potash producer, but it is the most phosphate-weighted and the most financially levered — which is the source of both its cheapness and its risk.

Table 3. Peer positioning — quality metrics

Source: company reports; figures approximate and on differing bases (K+S in EUR). Peer basis: large listed diversified fertilizer producers. To screen Mosaic against the full fertilizer and mining universe, use Metal Pilot.

Against this set Mosaic is the phosphate and #2 potash scale name with a genuinely low-cost Saskatchewan potash book, but it carries the group’s heaviest phosphate exposure, the highest capital intensity and the most leverage (~2.0× versus Nutrien’s ~1.8× and CF’s ~1×). That is the gap the scorecard quantifies: Mosaic wins on potash asset quality and cheapness, and gives back ground on margin, balance-sheet resilience and free-cash-flow reliability.

3. Financials & balance sheet

Mosaic’s 2025 financials tell two stories at once: an earnings recovery and a cash-flow problem. Revenue rose 8.4% to $12.1 billion, adjusted EBITDA rose 10% to $2.42 billion, and net income more than tripled to $541 million ($1.70 diluted EPS, $2.27 adjusted) — but the fourth quarter was a net loss of $519 million on notable items (impairments and asset-sale losses), and free cash flow was negative $535 million for the year. Applying the framework in the Commodity Financials — A Metrics Guide rather than re-teaching it: the income statement is real (potash and Brazil margins improved), but the cash-flow statement carries the warning — operating cash flow of ~$824 million did not cover $1.36 billion of capital expenditure, so the cash did not back the profit in 2025, and that is the single most important fact in the financials.

Table 4. Five-year financial summary (US$ m unless noted)

Source: Mosaic full-year 2025 results and prior annual reports; net income and revenue history (MacroTrends). Revenue, net income, EPS, capital expenditure, shares and dividends are as reported; adjusted EBITDA, operating cash flow, free cash flow and net debt for 2021–2023 are consistent-basis approximations, marked ~. Free cash flow = operating cash flow − capital expenditure.

Balance sheet & liquidity. Mosaic is investment-grade, but its balance sheet is the weakest of the peer set: net debt rose to ~$4.78 billion at year-end 2025 (total debt ~$5.05 billion less $0.28 billion cash), or ~2.0× adjusted EBITDA, up from ~1.8× in 2024 — the wrong direction, driven by negative free cash flow. The stress test matters more here than at Nutrien: at a mid-cycle-to-low potash netback the ratio moves toward ~2.5–3.0×, which is elevated for a cyclical commodity producer, and the scenario analysis in Section 7 shows the equity becoming a thin, levered stub in the deep-downside case. Offsetting this, liquidity is adequate (cash plus committed facilities), maturities are spread, and Mosaic holds a stake in Saudi Arabia’s Ma’aden (received in December 2024 in exchange for its 25% MWSPC interest) that is a monetisable, non-core asset. The asset-retirement obligations — phosphogypsum stacks, clay settling areas and mine closure — are a large, long-dated, partly-funded liability that is central to both the ESG profile (Section 5) and the valuation bridge (Section 7).

Capex, hedging & capital returns. Capital expenditure of $1.36 billion in 2025 (guided up to ~$1.5 billion in 2026 for gypstack and clay-settling work) is the swing factor for free cash flow, and it is overwhelmingly sustaining — a capital-hungry phosphate base rather than a growth programme. On treasury policy (the Document Description hedge field), Mosaic hedges inputs and currencies, not products: forward contracts, swaps and three-way collars on natural gas (0.9 million MMBtu of 2026 long positions at year-end) and forwards on the Canadian dollar, Brazilian real, Indian rupee and renminbi (including $181 million long CAD and $95 million long BRL), while leaving crop-nutrient sales fully exposed to market prices — which is why Section 7 flexes the fertilizer price directly. Capital returns are real but modest and cash-constrained: $280 million of dividends in 2025 ($0.88 annualised, a 3.6% yield) plus buybacks that have cut the diluted share count from ~380 million in 2021 to ~319 million. The honest read is that returns are being partly funded from the balance sheet while free cash flow is negative — sustainable only if capex normalises and the potash netback holds.

4. Management, strategy & corporate structure

4.1 Management & governance

Mosaic is led by Chief Executive Officer Bruce M. Bodine Jr., appointed in 2023, who rose through the company’s mining and plant-development ranks and most recently ran North America — an operator’s profile matched to a strategy built on asset reliability and cost. The Board oversees corporate strategy and enterprise risk, with the Audit Committee carrying explicit oversight of cybersecurity risk. Governance and operations run on the Mosaic Management System, the company’s structured continuous-improvement framework across its mining and processing sites, with a stated emphasis on safety and environmental stewardship. The board’s enterprise-risk oversight reflects the operational and geographic breadth of a business spanning Canada, the US, Peru and Brazil.

4.2 Strategy & capital allocation

The stated strategy is reliability, portfolio optimisation and disciplined returns: maintain investment-grade metrics, sustain the asset base, invest selectively for organic growth, and return excess cash through dividends and buybacks. In practice the recent emphasis has been on rationalising — selling idled and non-core mines — and on protecting the balance sheet while phosphate capital runs high. The two growth threads are the Mosaic Biosciences platform (biological complements to conventional fertilizer, a longer-term differentiation play) and optimisation of the company’s large land holdings. There is no transformational M&A ambition; capital allocation is defensive, prioritising asset reliability and the dividend over expansion — appropriate given the free-cash-flow position, but a reason the market does not pay up for growth.

4.3 Ownership & corporate structure

Mosaic is a widely held public company (NYSE: MOS) with no controlling shareholder. The recent structural moves are a clear pattern of simplification: in December 2024 it exchanged its 25% interest in MWSPC (the Saudi joint venture) for shares of Ma’aden, the Saudi mining major; in October 2025 it sold the idled Patos de Minas phosphate unit in Brazil for $111 million; in November 2025 it sold the Taquari potash mine in Brazil for up to $27 million; and in December 2025 it agreed to sell the Carlsbad potash mine in New Mexico for ~$30 million. It retains a 75% economic interest in Miski Mayo (Peru) and a 62% interest in Fospar (Brazil). The key ongoing relationship is Canpotex, the export joint venture with Nutrien through which Mosaic markets its Canadian potash offshore, with a 35.9% entitlement in 2025. There are no material warrants or blocking shareholdings.

5. ESG & sustainability

Mosaic’s sustainability framework centres on a “culture of safety” targeting zero harm to people and zero environmental incidents, run through the Mosaic Management System. The material environmental exposure — and the one that most affects the investment case — is residual-materials management: tailings dams, clay settling areas and, above all, phosphogypsum stacks, the large by-product piles from phosphate processing, managed in line with the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM). These are not a footnote: the associated asset-retirement obligations and the sustaining capital they require are the direct cause of Mosaic’s negative 2025 free cash flow, and a gypstack failure would be a serious environmental and financial event. On the social side, Mosaic invested over $15 million in community programmes in 2025 (food, water and local community), and it publishes a sustainability report while preparing for anticipated climate-disclosure requirements. The honest read is a below-median environmental profile driven by phosphate — phosphogypsum and tailings are genuine, capital-intensive liabilities that potash-only or nitrogen peers do not carry to the same degree — partly offset by credible safety governance and community investment.

6. Risks

Mosaic’s risks are the fertilizer cycle amplified by leverage and by phosphate’s capital intensity. The register below is stated before the valuation so Section 7 can price it.

Table 5. Risk register

Figure 5. Risk matrix — likelihood × impact

Source: this analysis, from the Mosaic 2025 Form 10-K risk factors. Positions are a qualitative assessment; the shaded band marks the high-impact region. H/M/L = high/medium/low.

Two risks would break the thesis, and they compound: the potash-and-phosphate price cycle, and Mosaic’s leverage. Unlike Nutrien, whose retail arm and lighter balance sheet cushion the cycle, Mosaic is a purer, more levered play — the same fertilizer downturn takes its equity down far harder, as Section 7’s deep-downside scenario shows. The offsetting truth is that the same leverage works upward: a firmer cycle and a return to positive free cash flow re-rate the equity quickly.

7. Valuation

Valuation as of 24 August 2026, in US dollars (Mosaic reports in USD). Horizon: spot fair value. Deck: the model’s swing input is Mosaic’s realised potash (MOP) net selling price, on a US$50/t grid — base US$250/t, with the full grid as the scenario set — deep bear $150 / bear $200 / base $250 / bull $300 / deep bull $350; the group EV/EBITDA target of 6.0× is the relative anchor (its 5.0×–7.0× band is the sensitivity’s second axis). Discount is expressed through the multiple, not a separate rate, because the primary method is a multiple-based sum-of-the-parts.

Mosaic is a diversified major, so the primary method is a sum-of-the-parts (each segment on its own EV/EBITDA convention), cross-checked by a blended group EV/EBITDA and a normalised FCF-yield support price. On these methods the blended base-case fair value is ~US$27.4/share against a US$24.39 price — an implied return of ~+12%, so the read is Modestly undervalued (wide band): cheap on the parts, but with a very wide scenario spread ($5–$56) because the equity is leveraged to the fertilizer cycle.

7.1 Method selection

Table 6. Valuation method selection

Every weighted method emits a value per share. Deviation from the diversified-major default (55/25/20): the FCF-yield weight is cut from 20% to 15% and shifted to EV/EBITDA (25%→30%), because 2025 free cash flow was negative and unrepresentative, so a bare FCF-yield would carry no honest number. Input-family exposure: intrinsic (SOTP) 55% single-method; cash-flow (EV/EBITDA + FCF-yield) 45% across two methods — under the 50% collinear cap.

7.2 Sum-of-the-parts (the primary value)

The SOTP values each segment’s 2025 adjusted EBITDA on a multiple appropriate to its quality, sums to enterprise value, and bridges to equity — subtracting net debt, a phosphate-heavy ARO/environmental charge, minorities and a modest conglomerate discount. The base multiples: Potash 8.0× (low-cost Sask, a notch below Nutrien’s 9.0× on smaller scale and swing capacity), Phosphates 5.0× (cyclical, capital-intensive), Mosaic Fertilizantes 5.5× (EM distribution), with corporate costs capitalised at 6.5×. A 5% conglomerate discount completes the bridge; the $1.0 billion ARO/environmental line captures the phosphogypsum and closure liabilities the market prices but the EBITDA multiple does not.

Figure 6. Sum-of-the-parts NAV build-up (US$ bn)

Figure data: this analysis’ SOTP model on 2025 segment adjusted EBITDA (Potash $1.18 bn × 8.0×, Phosphates $0.92 bn × 5.0×, Fertilizantes $0.57 bn × 5.5×, corporate −$0.25 bn × 6.5×), less $4.78 bn net debt, a $1.0 bn ARO/environmental charge, $0.35 bn minorities and a 5% conglomerate discount. Equity value $8.97 bn ÷ ~317 m shares = US$28.3/share. Current market cap ~$7.7 bn.

The gross segment enterprise value is ~$15.6 billion; the equity value of $8.97 billion works out to US$28.3/share — ~16% above the market price, the “hidden value” the sum-of-the-parts is meant to surface. The catch is that the bridge is dominated by ~$5.8 billion of net debt plus ARO, so a small change in segment multiples or in the potash netback moves the per-share answer a lot — which is the leverage that Section 7.5 makes visible.

7.3 Relative valuation & the FCF-yield support

Blended group EV/EBITDA. Mosaic trades around 5.3× EV/EBITDA today, below its diversified-fertilizer peers (6–8×) and below Nutrien’s 7.9×. At a 6.0× target — a mid-cycle multiple that still discounts Mosaic for its phosphate weight and leverage — on 2025 adjusted EBITDA of $2.421 billion, enterprise value is $14.5 billion, less $4.78 billion net debt, $1.0 billion ARO and $0.35 billion minorities = $8.40 billion equity, or US$26.5/share. This is a mid-cycle multiple on a mid-cycle EBITDA.

FCF-yield support (normalised). 2025 free cash flow was negative $535 million, so a bare FCF yield is meaningless. Using a normalised mid-cycle FCF of ~$0.7 billion — the level implied once phosphate sustaining capex reverts toward ~$1.1 billion — at an 8.5% target yield (a wider yield than Nutrien’s, for the lower quality and leverage), the implied equity value is ~$8.2 billion, or US$26.0/share. This carries a reduced 15% weight for exactly the reason the number has to be normalised.

7.4 Cross-checks

Analyst consensus (0% weight, V12): the average 12-month target is ~US$26.5 (high $35, low $17, on a Buy-tilted split), ~+8% above the price and within a dollar of this analysis’ blended base fair value — the model and the Street agree Mosaic is modestly cheap.

Market-implied potash netback (0% weight, V19): running the SOTP backwards, the current US$24.39 price implies a potash net selling price of roughly US$235/t — slightly below the ~$250/t the model uses as base and near the prevailing level. The market is pricing today’s fertilizer margins as roughly durable and applying a discount for leverage and phosphate, rather than betting on a downcycle.

7.5 Scenario analysis

Each column is a self-consistent world on the potash-netback grid: the potash price moves the segment’s EBITDA (±$450 m per $50/t), and the target multiples step with sentiment. Every weighted method is recomputed in each. The striking feature is the asymmetry: because Mosaic carries ~$5.8 billion of net debt plus ARO against ~$2.4 billion of EBITDA, the equity behaves like a levered call on the fertilizer cycle — the downside scenarios collapse it toward a stub while the upside scenarios multiply it.

Table 7. Scenario assumptions and per-method values (US$/share)

Illustrative scenarios, not forecasts. In the Deep Bear world the equity is a thin, levered stub (SOTP ~$3.6) — a de-facto option on the cycle; the FCF-yield method, floored on normalised cash flow, holds up better than the leverage-sensitive intrinsic method there. The multiple steps ±0.5× per rung with the deck.

Figure 7. Blended fair value — potash netback × group EV/EBITDA multiple (US$/share)

Figure data: this analysis’ blended fair value (SOTP 55% / EV-EBITDA 30% / FCF-yield 15%). Columns are Mosaic’s realised potash netback on the US$50/t grid; rows are the group EV/EBITDA target replacing the discount rate for this multiple-based method. Base case $250/t at 6.0× (outlined) = $27. A one-rung ($50/t) potash move shifts fair value by roughly ±$9/share (±35% at these levels) — far more equity leverage than Nutrien, whose same move is ~±13%.

7.6 Fair value & conclusion

Table 8. Fair-value blend (US$/share)

Source: this analysis; weights deviate from the diversified-major default (FCF-yield 15%, EV/EBITDA 30% — see 7.1). All figures in USD; horizon: spot fair value. Cross-checks at 0% weight: analyst consensus ~$26.5 (+8%), market-implied potash netback ~$235/t. Total-return line: at ~+12% implied price return plus a 3.6% dividend yield, the implied one-year total return is ~+16%.

The blended base-case fair value of US$27.4 against a US$24.39 price gives an implied return of ~+12% → Modestly undervalued. The scenario range is exceptionally wide — $5.1 in the deep-bear world to $56.2 in the deep-bull — and because the deep-bear case sits 79% below the current price, the read carries the (wide band) qualifier emphatically: this is a leveraged equity, and the single assumption that drives the downside is a potash reversion toward US$150/t. Consensus ($26.5) and the market-implied netback (~$235/t) both corroborate a modestly-cheap read.

Assumptions box. Valuation date 24 Aug 2026; balance-sheet date 31 Dec 2025; horizon spot fair value. Currency USD. Deck: potash net selling price on a US$50/t grid, base $250/t. “Discount rate” is expressed as the group EV/EBITDA target (5.0×–7.0×, base 6.0×), since the primary method is a multiple-based SOTP. Share count ~317 m diluted. Peer basis: trailing EV/EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, on the diversified-fertilizer set. Weights: SOTP 55% / EV-EBITDA 30% / FCF-yield 15% (deviation from the 55/25/20 default, stated in 7.1). ARO/environmental charged once, on the bridge. NAV provenance: author-built SOTP on company-reported segment EBITDA. Primary yardstick: SOTP equity value per share.

8. Near-term catalysts (1–3 years)

Mosaic’s catalysts are more consequential than Nutrien’s, because a levered, discounted equity re-rates harder when the operating picture improves — and the central catalyst is entirely self-help: getting free cash flow back to positive.

Table 9. Near-term catalysts (1–3 years)

These are the events that would confirm the bull case: positive free cash flow plus a firmer potash netback would close the discount to the sum-of-the-parts quickly, given the leverage. The swing factor is phosphate capital and the fertilizer cycle — neither fully within management’s control — so the catalysts are framed as guidance and possibility, not forecasts. (No takeover-optionality subsection is included: Mosaic is a diversified major, not an explorer or developer, so an M&A-target read would be speculation the reader cannot act on.)

9. Rating & verdict

Mosaic scores as a Solid (★★★½) company — a notch below Nutrien’s ★★★★. It shares the best potash jurisdiction on earth and a low-cost Saskatchewan core, but it carries the group’s heaviest phosphate exposure, its thinnest margins, its most leverage and, in 2025, negative free cash flow — so it is a lower-quality, cheaper, higher-beta version of the same cycle. The nine dimensions are scored against the same rubric every company in the sector uses, relative to the peer set declared in Section 2.7 (Nutrien, CF Industries, ICL, K+S).

Table 10. Scorecard — Mosaic

Weighted average: 0.60 + 0.45 + 0.60 + 0.45 + 0.45 + 0.19 + 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.19 = 3.43/5 → ★★★½ (Solid). Dominant dimensions (asset quality, cost, reserves, balance sheet, capital allocation) carry 15% each; the rest 6.25%. Sources as cited in Sections 2–5.

The two-axis verdict. Composite quality ★★★½ (Solid, 3.4/5); value read Modestly undervalued (wide band) as of 24 August 2026; verdict: Re-rating candidate — cheap, and the catalyst is free-cash-flow recovery. Mosaic is a lower-quality, more levered, more phosphate-heavy company than Nutrien, and it is priced accordingly — but the sum-of-the-parts sits ~12% above the price and the leverage cuts both ways.

The bull case is value and self-help: 5.3× EBITDA, a sum-of-the-parts ~$27 against a $24 price, world-class potash, a Brazilian business with real momentum, and a clear path to positive free cash flow as phosphate capex normalises — with the leverage amplifying any re-rating. The bear case is that the discount is earned: phosphate is a chronic capital sink with large environmental liabilities, net debt is rising, the dividend is being part-funded from the balance sheet, and in a potash reversion the equity behaves like a stub, as the deep-bear scenario shows.

The specific thing that tips it is free cash flow. If 2026–2027 capital spending normalises and the potash netback holds around the mid-cycle level, Mosaic swings back to positive FCF, the balance-sheet risk recedes, and the discount to the parts closes — a levered move up from a low base. If phosphate capital stays elevated and the cycle turns down, the leverage works the other way and the “cheap” multiple proves cheap for a reason. Relative to Nutrien — priced about right at higher quality — Mosaic is the cheaper, riskier expression of the same thesis: more upside if the cycle and the cash flow cooperate, more downside if they don’t.

To rank Mosaic against every listed fertilizer and mining name on the same nine dimensions — reserves, cost, reserve life, margin and value — screen the sector on Metal Pilot.

10. Sources, methodology & disclaimer

10.1 Sources, methodology & data vintage

Company filings. Mosaic 2025 Form 10-K (year ended 31 December 2025) — the spine of this analysis: the potash and phosphate mines and their reserves (proven & probable under S-K 1300, effective 31 December 2025), the segment structure, the MWSPC/Ma’aden exchange, the Patos de Minas, Taquari and Carlsbad divestitures, the Canpotex relationship, leadership, governance and sustainability disclosures. Mosaic Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Results (24 February 2026) — revenue, segment and group adjusted EBITDA, net income, EPS, cash flow, capital expenditure, net debt, dividend and 2026 guidance.

Exchange and market data. stockanalysis.com for the share price ($24.39), market capitalisation (~$7.7 bn), share count and 52-week range, as of the NYSE close on 24 August 2026; the net income and revenue history (MacroTrends) and prior Mosaic annual reports for the five-year figures; the ~$26.5 average analyst target (high $35, low $17) from published broker aggregates in mid-2026.

Commodity context. Potash (MOP) pricing and the long-run potash market in the Potash — A Complete Market Guide ; the peer read against Mosaic’s larger rival in the Nutrien (NTR) analysis . The valuation framework follows the Commodity Stock Valuation — A Valuation Guide and the financial-statement review the Commodity Financials — A Metrics Guide .

Methodology. Durable structure (reserves, mine life, capacity, ownership, jurisdiction) is kept separate from the dated market layer (share price, market cap, enterprise value, multiples, valuation) throughout. The data-as-of date is 24 August 2026; market data is as of the NYSE close that day; reserves and production are effective 31 December 2025; segment and financial figures are FY2025. Mosaic reports on a calendar fiscal year in US dollars under US GAAP. Scorecard weights follow the diversified-major reference case (dominant dimensions 15%, others 6.25%), sum to 100%, with no dimension not-applicable. The valuation is a multiple-based sum-of-the-parts reproducible from Figure 6, Table 8 and the assumptions box; the segment multiples, the ARO/environmental charge, the conglomerate discount, the potash-EBITDA sensitivity and the normalised free-cash-flow estimate are author assumptions, not company figures — and the FCF-yield weight was cut because 2025 FCF was negative (Section 7.1). Two figures from the standard set are not drawn: the asset map (a proportional-symbol map of the Saskatchewan, Florida, Peru and Brazil footprint — the Section 2.1 portfolio table and concentration paragraph carry that read instead) and a per-mine production time-series (the group EBITDA history in Figure 4 carries the cyclical read, with per-mine output in Table 2). Several 2021–2023 cash-flow, EBITDA and net-debt figures in Table 4 are consistent-basis approximations, marked ~. Update cadence: refreshed on each annual report and on material events — the next natural refresh is the Q3/Q4 2026 results and the trajectory of free cash flow.

Provenance: The Mosaic Company — Form 10-K — 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 24 August 2026: the share price, market capitalisation, enterprise value, multiples and valuation read all move, and fertilizer equities are cyclical and — in Mosaic’s case — leveraged and especially volatile. Reserve, production, segment and forecast figures are estimates, prepared on the codes and bases stated beside each table, and scenario 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 The Mosaic Company or in any company named here. Please do your own research and consult a licensed financial adviser.