Latest revenue
$74.0M
as of 2026-03-31
Latest net income
—
as of 2026-03-31
Net margin
—
as of 2026-03-31
Community sentiment
Where do you think MUX is heading?
Keep private notes on MUX — thesis, target price, catalysts to watch.
Visible only to you. Never shared. Never used to train AI.
MUX vs S&P 500 · rebased to 100
Market data
Price feed temporarily unavailable for MUX.
What this company does
ITEM 1. BUSINESS History and Organization McEwen Inc. (the “Company”) is a gold and silver mining production and exploration company with an advanced copper development project, focused on the Americas. We were incorporated under the laws of the state of Colorado in 1979 as US Gold Corp. In September 2011, US Gold Corp. acquired Minera Andes Inc., and was renamed McEwen Mining Inc. Effective July 7, 2025, the Company changed its name from McEwen Mining Inc. to McEwen Inc. We own 100% of the Froome mine and Stock mill in Ontario, Canada; 100% of the Gold Bar Mine Complex in Nevada; 100% of El Gallo (previously known as the Fenix Project) in Sinaloa, Mexico; a 46.3% interest in McEwen Copper…
AI summary unavailable — showing raw filing excerpt
Generated from MUX's filing dated 2026-03-17
Key risks
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS Our operations and financial condition are subject to significant risks, including those described below. You should carefully consider these risks. If any of these risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, and/or results of operation could be adversely affected. This report, including the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, contains forward-looking statements that may be affected by several risk factors, including those set forth below. The following information summarizes all material risks known to us as of the date of filing this report: Risks Relating to Our Financial Condition, Results of Operation…
AI summary unavailable — showing raw filing excerpt
Generated from MUX's filing dated 2026-03-17
ActaClear Score
Computed from 5 years of SEC fundamentals + latest market data, ranked within Gold and Silver Ores (37 peers). 10 = best in industry, 5 = median, 0 = worst. Refreshed Jun 10, 2026.
Fair value · DCF
Methodology + caveats (click to expand)
Method. 10-year forecast of free cash flow, discounted at the company's WACC, with a Gordon-growth terminal at year 10. FCF is proxied by last fiscal-year net income (proper FCF needs CFO − CapEx by year, which we don't store yet). Beta defaults to 1.0 when not reported.
Why DCF is fragile. Treat the output as a thinking aid, not a verdict. Honest weaknesses of any DCF:
- Growth is the dominant assumption. No one can foresee 10 years of growth — small changes in the slider can double or halve fair value. The reverse-DCF readout above tells you what the market is implicitly assuming; ask yourself whether that's realistic before trusting either number.
- Terminal value dominates. In most DCFs, 60-80% of the answer comes from the terminal-value calculation — i.e., everything AFTER year 10. A 0.5pp change in terminal growth, or in WACC, can swing fair value by 20-30%.
- WACC is itself a guess. We use a textbook CAPM cost of equity (Rf 4.3%, MRP 5.5%, β from the quote) plus a 6% pretax cost of debt — none of these are the company's actual marginal financing cost.
- No moat / disruption modelling. The model assumes the company keeps earning whatever it earns today, compounding cleanly. Competitive shifts, regulatory action, and technology disruption can invalidate the forecast overnight.
- Net income ≠ free cash flow. For capex-heavy names (semis, telcos) net income overstates distributable cash. For low-capex names (software) it understates. Both reduce the precision of the FV figure.
- Reflexivity. A high stock price often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy via better hiring, financing, and customer trust. DCF can't see this.
Take the DCF, the reverse-DCF implied growth, the historical multiples, and the community sentiment together. When they agree, conviction. When they disagree, the disagreement is the most informative thing on the page.
Historical multiples
How does MUX's current valuation compare to its own past?
P/E uses year-end weekly close ÷ (net income ÷ shares outstanding today). Held shares constant at today's count, which understates the per-share earnings improvement from buybacks over the period. PEG uses 5y revenue CAGR as a proxy for EPS growth — close, but not identical (margin expansion or dilution can drive a wedge). Best read as a comparator across companies and industries, not as a precise replica of historical multiples.