AIS.AX — Aeris Resources Equity Research Report

Aeris Resources Limited

ASX: AIS | Diversified Mining | Mid-tier Copper & Gold Producer

A$0.38

17 April 2026

52W range: A$0.16 – A$0.70

Market Cap

A$455M

A$383M

P/E (FY26E)

5.4×

EV/EBITDA (FY26E)

1.8×

FCF/EV (FY26E)

6.5%

ROIC (FY26E)

24.1%

Analyst Target

A$0.83

Base DCF

A$0.43

1. Business Overview

Aeris Resources is an Australian mid-tier base and precious metals producer operating two producing mines and three development projects. The company's portfolio has been significantly rationalised from five operating mines a year ago to a focused copper-gold footprint today. Headquartered in Brisbane, Aeris produces copper, gold and silver with an FY26 guidance of 40-49kt copper equivalent.

Asset Portfolio

Asset	State	Commodity	Status	FY26 Guidance
Tritton	NSW	Copper (+ Au, Ag)	Producing	24–29kt Cu
Cracow	QLD	Gold	Producing	36–46koz Au
Constellation	NSW (Tritton)	Copper	Development	Maiden reserve pending
Jaguar	WA	Zinc-Cu (VMS)	Care & maintenance	A$2.1M/qtr C&M
Stockman	VIC	Zn-Cu-Au	Development	Albion testwork
North QLD	QLD	Cu-Au	Divestment	Sale process underway

Commentary: Aeris is a smaller and more digestible business than it was 18 months ago. Management's FY26 strategy centres on six pillars: operational delivery at Tritton and Cracow; selling the North Queensland assets; rationalising Jaguar; unlocking Stockman via an acid-plant concept study and JV partner; pursuing greenfield exploration; and repaying the remaining debt by August 2026. The Peel Mining acquisition announced in February 2026 adds exploration optionality around the Cobar region for A$104M. This is the right posture for a cyclical mid-tier — bank the copper cycle, sell what's not core, and keep the balance sheet clean.

Reserves & Resources (as at 31 December 2024)

Category	Tonnes (Mt)	Cu (kt)	Zn (kt)	Au (koz)	Ag (koz)
Total Ore Reserves (Base)	13.63	249	413	350	11,853
Total Ore Reserves (Gold — Cracow)	0.51	–	–	48	–
Total Mineral Resources (Base)	44.50	784	1,045	910	36,070
Total Mineral Resources (Gold — Cracow)	4.40	–	–	452	571

Stockman alone holds ~315kt Cu and 624kt Zn in resource — an optionality layer that is not currently in the operating P&L but underwrites any break-up valuation.

2. Financial Performance

Income Statement Summary (A$M)

Metric	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	FY25	FY26E
Revenue	431.3	386.6	612.5	540.0	577.1	620.0
Gross Profit	93.4	33.2	(93.0)	35.7	115.4	155.0
EBITDA	164.7	93.7	32.0	99.3	164.1	210.0
EBIT	78.5	19.3	(118.6)	4.7	72.9	125.0
NPAT	61.2	6.0	(139.8)	(24.3)	45.2	85.0

Margin Series

Margin	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	FY25	FY26E
EBITDA margin	38.2%	24.2%	5.2%	18.4%	28.4%	33.9%
EBIT margin	18.2%	5.0%	(19.4%)	0.9%	12.6%	20.2%
Net margin	14.2%	1.6%	(22.8%)	(4.5%)	7.8%	13.7%
FCF margin	19.0%	(6.3%)	(14.8%)	(5.7%)	5.7%	4.0%

Balance Sheet Snapshot (31 Dec 2025 — H1 FY26)

Cash & Short-Term Investments

A$87.9M

Up from A$28.2M at FY25 close

Total Debt

A$15.9M

Down from A$55.4M — WHSP facility largely repaid

Net Debt / (Cash)

(A$72.0M)

Net cash position

Common Equity

A$452.6M

Up A$135M via FY26 H1 issuance + profits

Cash Flow Summary (A$M)

Metric	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	FY25	FY26E
OCF	169.7	93.0	59.3	62.5	130.9	165.0
Capex	(87.9)	(117.4)	(149.8)	(93.5)	(98.2)	(140.0)
Free Cash Flow	81.7	(24.4)	(90.5)	(30.9)	32.7	25.0

Commentary: The FY21→FY23 arc is a classic mid-tier mining story — strong margins at the top, a price/operational shock in the middle, then painful rebuild. FY23 was the bottom: negative gross profit, a A$140M loss, A$90M cash burn. FY25 marks the rebuild — A$131M OCF, A$45M NPAT, A$33M FCF despite continuing A$98M capex. The H1 FY26 print is the real inflection: A$97M OCF in a single half and net cash of A$72M. Management has used that cash to retire the highly-leveraged WHSP facility (down from A$55M to A$16M), vindicating the balance-sheet discipline promised in the FY26 strategy deck.

Capex will stay elevated through FY26 because Tritton is mid-stripping at the Murrawombie pit (A$25M invested in Q1 FY26 alone) and Constellation technical work is progressing toward a maiden ore reserve. So FCF is the FCF-margin-low-point in the base case, not the run-rate. Once Murrawombie stage 2 waste stripping completes and the ore reaches the mill (H2 FY26 → FY27), volume ramps and growth capex rolls off.

3. Valuation — Enterprise DCF

WACC Build

Component	Value	Source / Note
Risk-free rate (Rf)	4.40%	10-yr AU govt bond
Beta	1.60	Small-cap copper miner; historical vol implies high beta
MRP	6.00%	Standard Australian assumption
Cost of Equity (Ke)	14.00%	Rf + β × MRP = 4.4% + 1.6 × 6%
Pre-tax Cost of Debt (Kd)	10.00%	WHSP facility is "highly leveraged" per reported loan yield type
Tax rate	30%	Australian corporate
After-tax Cost of Debt	7.00%	10% × (1 − 30%)
Equity weight	96.6%	Market-value basis (A$455M / A$471M)
Debt weight	3.4%	A$16M / A$471M
WACC	13.76%	0.966 × 14.0% + 0.034 × 7.0%

The debt weight is unusually low because the company is nearly net-cash at balance date. Over a through-the-cycle capital structure, I'd expect Aeris to target 10-15% debt/total capital; I've used the current market-value weighting because it reflects today's risk profile.

DCF Scenario Assumptions

Assumption	Bear	Base	Bull
Year-1 FCF (A$M)	10	25	40
FCF CAGR Years 2–5	~6%	~15%	~20%
Terminal growth (g)	1.5%	2.0%	2.5%
WACC	15.26%	13.76%	12.76%
Commodity assumption (Cu)	US$8,000/t	US$9,429/t	US$11,000/t
Commodity assumption (Au)	US$2,800/oz	US$3,241/oz	US$3,700/oz

Scenario Results

Bear Case

A$0.14

−64% vs current

Base Case

A$0.43

+12% vs current

Bull Case

A$0.71

+87% vs current

Current Price

A$0.38

vs A$0.83 consensus target

Commentary: The base case sits ~12% above the current price. This is a fair-to-cheap setup, not a deep-value screamer. The scenarios span a wide range (A$0.14 to A$0.71) because miner DCFs are commodity-price-levered and Aeris is small enough that operating execution matters a lot. Terminal value as % of total EV ranges 30-44% — not excessive for a mid-tier, which is a comfort (the DCF isn't relying on heroic perpetuity assumptions).

Sensitivity Table — Per-share value by WACC × Terminal Growth

g \\ WACC	11.76%	12.76%	13.76%	14.76%	15.76%
1.0%	0.487	0.447	0.413	0.384	0.359
1.5%	0.497	0.454	0.418	0.388	0.363
2.0%	0.507	0.462	0.425	0.393	0.367
2.5%	0.519	0.471	0.432	0.399	0.371
3.0%	0.532	0.481	0.439	0.404	0.375
3.5%	0.546	0.491	0.447	0.411	0.380
4.0%	0.563	0.503	0.456	0.418	0.386

Base-case cell (WACC 13.76%, g 2.0%) highlighted in blue.

4. Valuation — Economic Profit

ROIC vs WACC Trajectory

Metric	FY25	FY26E
NOPAT	A$51.0M	A$87.5M
Average Invested Capital	A$326.8M	A$362.8M
ROIC	15.61%	24.12%
WACC	13.76%	13.76%
Spread (ROIC − WACC)	1.85%	10.36%
Economic Profit	A$6.1M	A$37.6M

Commentary: FY25 barely cleared the capital-cost hurdle (1.85pp spread) but the direction of travel is what matters. FY26 is shaping up to be a step-change year: higher copper production (24-29kt vs 19.4kt actual FY25), higher gold prices, and lower leverage freeing up finance-cost bandwidth. If management hits guidance, economic profit moves from ~A$6M to ~A$38M — a 6× increase that the market has not yet priced in given the stock is down 40% YTD.

A FY23-type event (impairments, negative gross profit) would invert this entirely — economic profit was deeply negative in that year. So the economic-profit story is conditional on commodity prices holding and operations running to plan. That conditionality is exactly what the stress-testing section below quantifies.

5. Valuation Summary — Football Field

DCF (Bear→Bull)

A$0.14 – A$0.71

Economic Profit implied

A$0.30 – A$0.50

Analyst consensus

A$0.70 – A$0.98

EV/EBITDA peers (1.8-4.4×)

A$0.38 – A$1.17

A$0.00 A$0.40 A$0.80 A$1.20

Commentary: The current price (red line) sits inside the DCF and Economic Profit ranges but well below analyst consensus. The analyst cohort is more bullish than my model — 4 covering analysts all Buy/Strong Buy, mean target A$0.83 (+119% upside). The gap between my base case (A$0.43) and consensus (A$0.83) probably reflects a more optimistic commodity deck and full credit for Constellation/Stockman optionality, neither of which I've underwritten in the base case. Multiples benchmarking sits somewhere in the middle — at peer-median 4.4× EV/EBITDA, Aeris would trade closer to A$1.20; at the bottom of the peer range (1.8×, which is roughly where it is) it's fairly priced. The market is pricing Aeris as if FY26 guidance has tail-risk baked in.

6. Savings Account Test

If you bought the whole enterprise for A$383M, the Free Cash Flow it generates would pay you:

6.5%

Annual FCF yield on Enterprise Value (FY26E basis)

Benchmark	Rate	Aeris vs Benchmark
RBA Cash Rate	4.35%	+2.15pp — BEATS ✓
12-month Term Deposit	5.00%	+1.50pp — BEATS ✓
ASX 200 Earnings Yield	5.50%	+1.00pp — BEATS ✓
10-yr AU Govt Bond	4.40%	+2.10pp — BEATS ✓

Commentary: The 6.5% FCF yield beats all risk-free and benchmark alternatives, but only modestly. The Savings Account Test for a miner has to be interpreted with care — FY26E FCF is artificially depressed by the Murrawombie growth capex (A$58-71M of Tritton growth capex alone). On a normalised, post-growth-capex basis, FCF/EV probably sits closer to 12-15%, which would be a much more attractive yield. Looked at another way: the market is paying Aeris a 6.5% "deposit rate" while the business still has the Stockman option, Constellation upside, and falling debt cost — the embedded options are being thrown in free.

7. Risk Analytics

Quantitative risk framework sourced from Linsmeier & Pearson (2000), Damodaran, Lam (2014), FinanceTrainingCourse (2014), de Wilde (2010), and Dalbudak et al. (2017).

7.1 Value at Risk — Equity Position (Delta-Normal)

Parameter	Value
Method	Variance-covariance (delta-normal)
Portfolio value (market cap)	A$454.9M
Annualised volatility (σ)	75%
Daily σ (= σ/√252)	4.72%
Confidence levels	95%, 99%

VaR Horizon	95% (z=1.645)	99% (z=2.326)
1-day	A$35.4M (7.8%)	A$50.0M (11.0%)
10-day	A$111.8M (24.6%)	A$158.1M (34.8%)
1-year (√252 scaling)	A$561.2M (capped at mcap)	A$793.6M (capped at mcap)

Interpretation: On a single trading day, there is a 1% probability that the equity position loses more than A$50M (11% of market cap). Over a 10-day horizon — the Basel standard — 99% VaR is A$158M. The 1-year figure being above market cap is an artefact of √t scaling under normality; real-world small-cap miners with 75%+ vol have a non-trivial probability of losing most of their value over a year (the 52-week range of A$0.16-0.70 vs current A$0.38 is a direct illustration).

Method caveat: Delta-normal assumes normality. For a stock with annual vol of 75% and observed drawdowns that look fat-tailed, historical simulation or Monte Carlo would give a materially higher VaR. At 99% confidence, empirical backtesting evidence from Dalbudak et al. (2017) favours historical simulation over delta-normal, which tends to land in Basel's "yellow zone" (5-9 deviations out of 255 trading days). Flagged as a limitation of the current model.

7.2 Earnings at Risk — FY26 EBITDA

Parameter	Value
Earnings base (FY26E EBITDA)	A$210.0M
Confidence levels	95%, 99%
Horizon	1 year
Correlation assumption	Zero (conservative — true correlations likely positive Cu/Au down; understates risk)

Tornado — Risk Driver Sensitivities (ranked, largest first)

Risk Factor	Base	1σ adverse	$ impact	% of EBITDA
Cu price	US$9,429/t	−20%	−A$68.2M	−32.5%
AUD/USD	0.66	+8%	−A$43.4M	−20.7%
Au price	US$3,241/oz	−15%	−A$33.2M	−15.8%
Operating cost inflation	A$400M base	+5%	−A$20.0M	−9.5%

Aggregate EaR

Confidence	EaR (A$M)	Stressed EBITDA (A$M)	% of base
Aggregate 1σ (uncorrelated)	A$89.7M	A$120.3M	42.7% shortfall
95% (1.645σ)	A$147.5M	A$62.5M	70.2% shortfall
99% (2.326σ)	A$208.6M	A$1.4M	99.3% shortfall

Commentary: Copper price is the dominant earnings driver (roughly 2× the sensitivity of any other factor). A 1-in-100-year adverse move across all factors combined would essentially wipe out EBITDA. This is the mathematical expression of what every mining analyst already knows intuitively: Aeris is a copper-price proxy with gold sweeteners and some FX optionality. Every valuation view of this name is implicitly a commodity view.

EaR is distinct from VaR per Damodaran: VaR measures mark-to-market value risk over days; EaR measures earnings risk over quarters or years. EaR is the more relevant metric for a non-financial firm like Aeris.

7.3 Stress Tests

Scenario 1 — Commodity Bear (Cu −30%, Au −20%, AUD +10%)

Factor	Base	Stressed	EBITDA Impact
Cu price (US$/t)	9,429	6,600	−A$102.3M
Au price (US$/oz)	3,241	2,593	−A$44.3M
AUD/USD	0.66	0.73	−A$54.2M
Stressed EBITDA	A$210.0M	A$9.2M	−A$200.8M (−96%)

Scenario 2 — Operational Shock (Production −15%, Cost +10%)

Factor	Base	Stressed	EBITDA Impact
Production (Cu-eq kt)	44	37.4	−A$71.8M
Operating costs	A$400M	A$440M	−A$40.0M
Stressed EBITDA	A$210.0M	A$98.2M	−A$111.8M (−53%)

Scenario 3 — 2023-style Stagflation (Cu −40%, Au +10%, AUD +5%, Cost +15%)

Factor	Base	Stressed	EBITDA Impact
Cu price	US$9,429/t	US$5,657/t	−A$136.4M
Au price (flight to quality)	US$3,241/oz	US$3,565/oz	+A$22.1M
AUD/USD	0.66	0.69	−A$27.1M
Cost inflation	A$400M base	A$460M	−A$60.0M
Stressed EBITDA	A$210.0M	A$8.6M	−A$201.4M (−96%)

Survival Assessment

Metric	Value
Cash on hand (H1 FY26)	A$87.9M
Available debt headroom	~A$40M (WHSP facility)
Maintainable sustaining capex under stress	~A$60M (down from A$57-70M base)
Break-even stressed EBITDA (to cover sus. capex)	A$60M
Scenarios 1 & 3	Deep trouble — cash runway ~18 months at stress levels before asset sales
Scenario 2	Survivable — A$98M EBITDA covers sustaining capex plus modest growth

Commentary: Scenarios 1 and 3 — a serious commodity downturn — would wipe out EBITDA and force management back into the same playbook as FY23: shelve growth capex, sell non-core assets, raise equity. The H1 FY26 balance sheet means Aeris would probably survive a 12-month stress without being forced, but anything longer would be painful. The A$104M Peel Mining acquisition consumed some of that buffer. Per Lam (2014): stress tests cover "the most severe events that seem plausible" and supplement rather than replace VaR.

7.4 Economic Capital (99.9% solvency — A-rating equivalent)

Metric	Value
Method	EaR-based proxy (non-bank firm)
Target solvency standard	99.9% (A-rating)
z-score	3.090
Aggregate 1σ EaR (uncorrelated)	A$89.7M
Economic Capital (EC)	A$277.1M
Current equity buffer	A$452.6M
EC coverage ratio	1.63×

Interpretation: To remain solvent at a 99.9% confidence threshold across one year, Aeris needs roughly A$277M of loss-absorbing capital. Current equity stands at A$453M — a 1.63× coverage ratio. That's adequate but not generous. A bank regulator would expect 1.5-2× coverage for an investment-grade equivalent rating; Aeris sits on the low end. The implication is that a major equity raise under stress conditions (Scenario 1 or 3) would probably be needed to recapitalise to a comfortable buffer.

This is a simplified EC construct — non-bank EC is not formally defined by Basel. The calculation assumes zero correlation between Cu, Au, AUD, and cost factors (in reality Cu and AUD are positively correlated, which would amplify tail risk). The true EC figure with realistic correlations would be ~10-20% higher.

7.5 RAROC — Risk-Adjusted Return on Capital (FY26E)

Metric	Formula	Value	Threshold	Assessment
RAROC	A$85M / A$277M	30.7%	> Ke (14.0%)	Creates value ✓
EIC	A$85M − 14% × A$277M	+A$46.2M	> $0	Creates value ✓

Commentary: Even on a risk-adjusted basis, FY26E delivers a respectable 31% RAROC — more than double the 14% cost of equity. That translates to A$46M of economic value creation per year at guidance levels. The catch: this is entirely conditional on FY26 guidance being hit. A Scenario 1 stress event would flip RAROC negative. Per de Wilde (2010), RAROC alone can mislead — for a cyclical commodity producer, I'd want to see RAROC sustained over a full cycle before treating it as evidence of structural value creation.

7.6 Consolidated Risk Summary

Risk Metric	Value	Interpretation
1-day 99% VaR (equity)	A$50M (11%)	High daily volatility consistent with small-cap miner
1-year 99% EaR (EBITDA)	A$209M	Tail earnings loss nearly 100% of base
Worst stress scenario EBITDA	A$8.6M	Scenario 3 — near-zero; would force mgmt action
Economic Capital (99.9%)	A$277M	Coverage 1.63× (adequate, not generous)
FY26E RAROC	30.7%	Well above 14% Ke — value creating
FY26E EIC	+A$46M	Absolute value created per year

8. Red Flags Assessment (Allen/Plato Framework)

#	Category	Status	Detail
1	Negative Operating Cash Flow	CLEAR	OCF A$131M FY25, A$97M H1 FY26. Strong conversion.
2	Earnings–Cash Flow Divergence	CLEAR	NPAT A$45M vs OCF A$131M — normal D&A gap, no quality-of-earnings issue.
3	Excessive Debt	CLEAR	Net cash A$72M at H1 FY26. Debt/EBITDA < 0.1×. WHSP facility being retired.
4	Insider Selling	WATCH	Washington H. Soul Pattinson reduced stake by 2.36pp YoY (top seller US$7.7M). Largest holder still at 17.14%.
5	Executive Remuneration	CLEAR	No evidence of excess. New CFO and Joint Company Secretary (<1 month tenure) worth monitoring.
6	Corporate Governance	WATCH	Andre Labuschagne holds Executive Chairman role — dual CEO/Chair function weakens board independence. 12 years in position.
7	Related Party Transactions	WATCH	WHSP facility (major debt lender) is also the largest shareholder and top-selling firm this quarter — tight web of related-party exposures.
8	Auditor Quality	CLEAR	Assumed Big-4 (standard for ASX mid-tier miner).
9	Aggressive Growth Expectations	CLEAR	Market price (A$0.38) sits just below my base DCF (A$0.43). Consensus (A$0.83) is more aggressive than my model but market isn't pricing it.
10	High Beta	FLAG	Estimated β = 1.60. 1-year share price range A$0.16–A$0.70 is a 4× spread. Among the highest-volatility names in the ASX mid-tier mining space.
11	Non-Standard Performance Metrics	WATCH	Heavy use of "Copper Equivalent" (Cu-eq) production — legitimate for multi-metal miners but commodity-price assumption sensitive. Mgmt flags this transparently.
12	Overstated Receivables	CLEAR	Receivables A$25M on A$577M revenue = 4% (very low for miners — concentrate offtake reconciliations short cycle).

⚠️ VERDICT: CAUTION (1 FLAG + 4 WATCH — Total: 5)

Commentary: The balance sheet and earnings quality scream CLEAR; what drags the score into Caution territory is the governance web around Washington H. Soul Pattinson (largest shareholder, lender, and top seller in the quarter), the long-tenured Executive Chairman, and the sheer volatility of the stock. None of these are deal-breakers but they compound: in a tight-knit cap table with a dominant-but-selling anchor investor and a long-serving Executive Chair, surprises tend to be harder to pre-empt.

9. Risks & Considerations

Commodity price risk. The single largest driver of value. EaR analysis shows a 20% copper price decline alone wipes out 33% of EBITDA. Cu/Au are the dominant exposures; a structural copper bear would reset the whole investment thesis. Aeris entered gold hedges in Q1 FY26 for ~20koz at A$5,145/oz — a modest but sensible step.

Operational execution risk — Murrawombie Pit. Stage 2 waste stripping is mid-flight. The project requires continuous cashflow investment (A$25M in Q1 FY26 alone) before ore hits the mill in H2 FY26. Any delay slips the copper production step-up into FY27 and extends the negative-FCF window.

Development risk — Constellation and Stockman. Constellation technical work (maiden reserve, mine design, metallurgical testwork, permitting) is progressing but not yet committed. Stockman remains in concept-study phase with partner-sourcing in progress. Both represent real option value that is currently sitting at zero in the market price.

Financing & related-party concentration. The WHSP facility is a highly-leveraged loan at an estimated ~10% cost, and WHSP is also the 17% shareholder and the top-selling institutional investor this quarter. When your biggest shareholder is also your biggest creditor and has been trimming the position, the refinancing dynamics around the August 2026 debt repayment deadline matter.

Jurisdictional / permitting risk. The Stockman project sits in East Gippsland (Victoria) — a jurisdiction with a more complex permitting and environmental-approvals history than NSW or QLD. The acid-plant concept study adds a further layer of environmental scrutiny.

Peel Mining integration risk. The A$104M acquisition (announced February 2026) adds Cobar-region exploration optionality but also integration complexity and cash consumption against a balance sheet that only recently returned to net-cash.

10. Analyst Consensus

Rating	Count
Strong Buy	2
Buy	2
Hold	0
Sell	0
Strong Sell	0
Mean Recommendation	STRONG BUY

Analyst	Rating	Target	Implied Upside	Last Updated
Ord Minnett (Kaner)	Speculative Buy	A$0.75	+97.3%	16 Apr 2026
Bell Potter (Coates)	Buy	A$0.90	+136.8%	2 Apr 2026
Macquarie (Baker)	Outperform	A$0.70	+84.2%	30 Mar 2026
Undisclosed	Buy	A$0.98	+157.9%	27 Feb 2026
Mean		A$0.83	+119.1%

Commentary: Consensus is unanimously positive with every rating Buy or better. The average implied upside of 119% is substantially more bullish than my DCF base case (+12% upside). Two reasons for the gap: (i) analysts are underwriting more of the Constellation/Stockman development pipeline than I have; (ii) the consensus commodity deck is probably more bullish on copper than US$9,429/t. That said, the stock is down 40% YTD against a flat-to-negative sector, and target prices haven't moved proportionally — the market is sceptical of the bullish case for now.

What Does Aeris Resources Do?

Aeris digs copper and gold out of the ground in Australia. They operate two mines — one in New South Wales called Tritton (mostly copper) and one in Queensland called Cracow (mostly gold). They have three more mines or projects in various stages of planning. The business has been cleaned up dramatically in the last 18 months — they've gone from five operating sites down to two, and they're trying to sell one of the development projects in North Queensland.

How Has the Business Been Performing?

In a word: volatile. Revenue swung from A$612M in FY23 to A$540M in FY24 to A$577M in FY25. Profits were even more dramatic — they lost A$140M in FY23, then lost A$24M in FY24, then made A$45M in FY25. The current half year (H1 FY26) is looking like the best results in years: A$306M revenue, A$48M profit, and most importantly A$97M of cash coming in the door. They've used that cash to pay down most of their debt, which means the balance sheet is now the strongest it's been in years.

What Is It Actually Worth?

My base estimate is A$0.43 per share. The stock trades at A$0.38, so it's about 12% undervalued on my numbers. If commodity prices stay where they are and management delivers on their FY26 plan, the stock could reach A$0.71 (my bull case). If copper prices fall sharply or there's an operational problem, fair value could drop to A$0.14. Four separate professional analysts have more bullish targets — they average A$0.83, which is much higher than my base case. That means either the analysts are right and I'm too conservative, or I'm right and the consensus is too optimistic. Pick your side.

The Savings Account Test

If you bought the entire company today for A$383M, the free cash it generates would pay you about 6.5% per year. That's better than a term deposit (~5%), better than the RBA cash rate (4.35%), and better than the ASX 200 average. Not a screaming bargain, but it beats the alternatives — and the cash-flow number I've used is artificially depressed because Aeris is ploughing huge amounts into growth capex right now. Once that growth capex rolls off (probably FY27), the "deposit rate" could rise to 12-15%.

Are There Any Red Flags?

Overall verdict: CAUTION. One genuine flag (the stock is extremely volatile — I estimate beta of 1.6, and the 52-week range is A$0.16 to A$0.70, which is a 4× spread in a year). Four watches: the largest shareholder (Washington H. Soul Pattinson) is both the biggest lender and the biggest seller this quarter; the Chairman has also been the CEO for 12 years; there's no formal reporting of executive pay yet; and the company uses "copper equivalent" metrics that depend on commodity-price assumptions. Nothing is a deal-breaker but they compound.

Bottom Line

Aeris is a volatile small mining stock that just had its best trading half in years. The balance sheet is the strongest it's been, the business is more focused, and if management executes on their FY26 plan it will generate meaningful free cash flow. At A$0.38 the stock is reasonably priced — not an obvious bargain, not obviously expensive. The upside case (copper cycle continues, Constellation and Stockman succeed) is genuinely interesting; the downside case (copper price crashes, another FY23-style year) would be painful. If you believe in the copper cycle and can tolerate 75% annualised volatility, this is a plausible mid-cap exposure. If you need sleep at night, buy Evolution Mining or Sandfire instead.