Royal Gold Inc Q4 FY2025 Earnings Call

Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us on today's call for Royal Gold's 2025 Full Year and Fourth Quarter Conference Call. We will have a Q&A session during the call. Now, I'm pleased to hand it over to Alistair Baker to begin. Please go ahead when you are ready.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, and welcome to our discussion of Royal Gold's fourth quarter and year-end 2025 results. This event is being webcast live, and a replay of this call will be available on our website. Speaking on the call today are Bill Heissenbuttel, President and CEO; Paul Libner, Senior Vice President and CFO; and Martin Raffield, Senior Vice President of Operations. Other members of the management team are also available for questions. During today's call, we will make forward-looking statements, including statements and other projections and expectations for the future. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from these statements. These risks and uncertainties are discussed in yesterday's press release and our filings with the SEC. We will also refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures, including adjusted net income, adjusted net income per share, adjusted EBITDA and cash G&A. Reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are available in yesterday's press release, which can be found on our website. Bill will start with an overview of 2025 performance. Martin will provide portfolio commentary and Paul will give a financial update on the quarter. After the formal remarks, we'll open the lines for a Q&A session. I'll now turn the call over to Bill.

Good morning, and thank you for joining the call. I'll begin on Slide 4. 2025 was a transformational year for Royal Gold. We set records for revenue, operating cash flow, and earnings and completed some material acquisitions that set us up very well for the current strong gold price environment and over the longer term. We also had developments within our portfolio that added significant value to some of our largest assets. For the full year, revenue was $1 billion. Operating cash flow was $705 million, and earnings were $466 million. These were increases of 43%, 33%, and 40%, respectively, over 2024. After adjusting for unusual items throughout the year, net income was a record $510 million, a 47% increase over 2024. We are a gold-focused company, and gold contributed 78% of total revenue for the year. The strong gold price, combined with our low and stable cash G&A allowed us to maintain an adjusted EBITDA margin of 82% for the year. During the year, we paid over $118 million to shareholders in dividends and raised our annual dividend to $1.90 per share for 2026. This is the 25th consecutive annual dividend increase, which is an unmatched record in the precious metals industry. Since our first dividend in 2000, we have returned approximately $1.2 billion to shareholders. We were very active during the year and made several meaningful acquisitions. We acquired Sandstorm Gold and Horizon Copper, which allowed us to meaningfully grow and diversify our portfolio. We now have the largest and most diversified portfolio of mining assets in our sector. We acquired a gold stream on the producing Kansanshi mine from First Quantum, which adds another large, long life and cash flowing asset to the portfolio. And we acquired a gold stream and royalty on the Warintza development project, increased our exposure to the Xavantina mine, and added a further royalty interest on the Lawyers-Ranch project. Our portfolio performed well during the year, and we achieved full repayment of the advanced stream deposits on the Rainy River, Pueblo Viejo, and Andacollo mine. We acquired these interests in 2015, and each remains an important contributor to the portfolio. We also saw some very positive news from within the portfolio with the life of mine extension at Mount Milligan, the recently approved expansion at Khoemacau, and significant exploration success of Fourmile. And finally, we got off to a quick start on rationalizing and simplifying the Sandstorm and Horizon portfolios. The integration of these portfolios is largely complete, and we're looking forward to further daylighting the value in those portfolios. Paul will discuss the fourth quarter in more detail, but I'd like to comment that there were several unusual financial items last year and in particular, this last quarter that were one-time in nature and related to this acquisition activity. We started 2026 with these items behind us, and we are hosting an Investor Day on March 31 to put our 2025 activity into context, provide 2026 guidance, and give directions on how we see growth over the longer term. Turning to Slide 5. We performed well in 2025 compared to guidance. Our annual guidance was issued in March 2025 based on the interest in our portfolio at that time. We didn't update guidance during the year to include the impacts of the Sandstorm, Horizon, or Kansanshi acquisitions, and we likewise didn't include the impacts of these acquisitions in the comparison of actual results to our guidance ranges. Compared to the guidance ranges for the year before the new acquisitions, all categories were within the guidance range except for revenue from other metals, which exceeded the high end of that range. I'll now turn the call over to Martin to discuss portfolio performance in the fourth quarter.

Thanks, Bill. Turning to Slide 6. Portfolio performance was solid for the quarter. Volume was 90,800 GEOs with record revenue of $375 million, which included new revenue of $32 million from Kansanshi and $49 million from Sandstorm, Horizon. We closed the Sandstorm, Horizon transaction on October 20, so the revenue from these interests does not reflect the full quarter. Royalty revenue was up by 42% from the prior-year quarter to $111 million. We saw very strong revenue from the quarter's CC Zone in Penasquito, partially offset by weaker revenue from the Cortez legacy zone. Revenue from our stream segment was $265 million, up over 110% from the same period last year. We saw higher contributions from all our stream interests with materially higher sales from Pueblo Viejo, Andacollo, Rainy River, and Mount Milligan. I'll now turn to Slide 7 and give some high-level commentary on notable developments within the portfolio in the last quarter. The portfolio has grown to include interests in about 80 producing and 30 development assets. And we've changed our disclosure this quarter to group our interests on a regional basis and break out the revenue for the largest interests. This should help you track our most material revenue drivers. At Mount Milligan, Centerra reported it continues to progress engineering and studies to support permitting for the life of mine extension to 2045. At Pueblo Viejo, Barrick reported continued progress on the life of mine extension with a focus on housing and resettlement and the engineering and permitting for the new tailings facility. Barrick also reported guidance for its share of gold production of 350,000 to 400,000 ounces in 2026. At Cortez, Barrick reported continued exploration success at Fourmile with the extension of the Dorothy zone and the identification of new mineralization below the Mill Canyon stock and down to the Charlie area. Barrick also reported 2026 production guidance for the Cortez complex of approximately 700,000 to 780,000 ounces on a 100% basis. Our royalties overlap the Cortez, and we expect an average blended royalty rate of 3.5% to 4% over this production in 2026 versus 2.6% in 2025. At Xavantina, Ero filed an updated technical report showing a 4-year extension to the life of mine to 2032. Ero expects 2026 gold production to range between 40,000 and 50,000 ounces. Ero further disclosed that it sold approximately 15,000 ounces of gold and gold concentrate in the fourth quarter, and it expects concentrate sales to continue through mid-2027. The sale of gold and gold concentrate is not included in their guidance. At Fruta del Norte, Lundin Gold reported continued exploration success and recent drilling continues to advance the understanding of the emerging porphyry belt adjacent to the mine. Lundin has identified a large intrusive complex hosting several shallow copper-gold porphyry systems within a short distance of each other, and the newest discovery extends the porphyry corridor to at least 10 kilometers in length. At MARA, Glencore reported that feasibility study work is ongoing with a final investment decision targeted for the second half of 2027. And first production is expected from the Agua Rica deposit in 2031. At Kansanshi, we received our first stream delivery in early October, and we are now receiving regular monthly deliveries. First Quantum declared commercial production at the S3 expansion in December and 3-year copper production guidance that increases with the ramp-up of the S3 expansion feed. Based on First Quantum's copper production guidance and production to delivery to sales timing, we expect 2026 gold sales attributable to our stream interest of 26,000 to 31,000 ounces, which rises to 38,000 to 43,000 ounces in 2028. At Khoemacau, MMG reported that the feasibility study for the expansion was approved by the Board and production of concentrate is expected in the first half of 2028. MMG is targeting annual silver production of 4 million to 4.5 million ounces, and we expect our share to be about 60% at this level. We expect silver production to our account of 1.45 million to 1.55 million ounces in 2026. Recall that our stream has a 90% payable factor applicable to this production. At Platreef, by Ivanhoe mines reported that development continues on schedule. The first sale of concentrate from Phase 1 was completed late in the fourth quarter and the Phase II expansion is targeted for completion in the fourth quarter of 2027. We expect to see first revenue from Platreef in the first half of 2026. And finally, at Hod Maden, SSR announced the results of a feasibility study for a 10-year life of mine with annual average production of 159,000 ounces of gold and 21 million pounds of copper and a development capital cost of $910 million. I'll now turn the call over to Paul.

Thanks, Martin. I'll turn to Slide 8 and give an overview of the financial results for the quarter. For the discussion on Slides 8 and 9, I'll be comparing the quarter ended December 31, 2025, to the prior year quarter. Revenue for the quarter was up strongly by 85% to $375 million. As Martin noted, during the quarter, we saw a combined new revenue of about $82 million from the Kansanshi Gold stream and the Sandstorm Horizon interest. Metal prices were also a major driver of the revenue increase with gold up 55%, silver up 74%, and copper up 21% over the prior year. Gold remains our dominant revenue driver, making up 78% of total revenue for the quarter, followed by silver at 11% and copper at 8%. Royal Gold has the highest gold revenue percentage when compared to our large cap peers in the royalty and streaming sector, and we expect our revenue mix will remain consistent after the recent acquisitions. To help you with your Q1 estimates, we expect first quarter 2026 GEO sales to be in line with the fourth quarter. We will provide details on 2026 revenue guidance at our Investor Day. But at this point, we expect the first quarter sales to be the lowest of the year and not reflective of the full year. Turning to Slide 9. I'll provide more detail on certain financial items for the quarter. G&A expense was $17.6 million, which is approximately $9 million higher than the prior year. The higher G&A expense this period was mostly due to higher corporate costs related to integration activities associated with the Sandstorm and Horizon Copper acquisitions. These integration costs were nearly $4.5 million, and many of these costs are largely one-time in nature and are not expected to be recurring. Employee-related costs, which also includes noncash stock compensation, were $3 million higher during the quarter. Like the integration-related costs, much of these additional employee costs this quarter are not expected in future periods. Moving forward, we are estimating our 2026 total G&A expense to range between $50 million and $60 million. This estimate reflects some of the cost synergy savings we expected when we announced the Sandstorm and Horizon Copper acquisition. Our DD&A expense increased to $80 million from $34 million in the prior year. On a unit basis, this expense was $881 per GEO for the quarter compared to $444 per GEO last year. The higher overall expense was primarily due to $33 million in additional depletion attributable to the producing interest acquired from Sandstorm and $13 million in additional depletion from the new Kansanshi gold stream. Depletion expense and depletion rates for the producing Sandstorm interests are higher than historical amounts reported by Sandstorm. This is primarily due to an increase in the carrying values of these interests, which were stepped up as part of purchase accounting rules under U.S. GAAP. Excluding the additional depletion as part of the Sandstorm interest and the new Kansanshi stream, our 2025 DD&A expense was within guidance range we provided earlier in 2025. We will provide more detail on 2026 DD&A expectations when we provide 2026 guidance at our upcoming Investor Day. Costs related to the Sandstorm Horizon Copper acquisition were $14 million for the quarter. We highlighted these costs on our last conference call, and these costs are attributable to financial advisory, legal, accounting, tax, and consulting services specific to the acquisition. Again, these costs are one-time in nature, and we do not expect much, if any, of these costs beyond this quarter. As we announced in November, we sold all the Versamet Royalties common shares that we acquired with Sandstorm. The sale resulted in a one-time loss of approximately $48 million during the quarter. The loss is due to the difference between the sale price of CAD 8.75 per share and the fair market value of the shares on the date we acquired Sandstorm, which was CAD 11.60 per share. We view the value of this shared position at CAD 5.20 per share on the date of the Sandstorm transaction announcement in July. So while we recognize an accounting loss, we sold the position at a price that was 68% higher than our original valuation. Interest and other expense increased to $17.7 million from $1.4 million in the prior period, due primarily to higher average amounts outstanding under the revolving credit facility in the current quarter. Tax expense for the quarter was $53 million, resulting in an effective tax rate of 36% compared to tax expense of $26 million in the prior year. The higher income tax expense is primarily attributable to higher pretax income and one-time acquisition-related tax items. Absent the unusual and nonrecurring items, our effective tax rate for the quarter was approximately 22.5%. Our annual effective tax rate for 2025 was 17.8% and within the guidance range we provided earlier. We will provide more detail on the expectations of our effective tax rate, when we give our 2026 guidance. Net income for the quarter was $94 million, or $1.16 per share, which compares to $107 million, or $1.63 per share in the prior year. The decrease in net income was largely due to the one-time loss on the sale of the Versamet shares and the one-time costs related to the Sandstorm Horizon Copper acquisition I just outlined. After adjusting for these items, adjusted net income was $155 million, or $1.92 per share. Finally, our operating cash flow this quarter was a record $242 million, up significantly from $141 million in the prior period. The increase was primarily due to higher stream and royalty revenue and proceeds from the first delivery of deferred gold for the Mount Milligan cost support agreement. These increases were partially offset by the higher acquisition-related costs I mentioned earlier. In summary, it was a solid operating quarter, but with some unusual items related to the Sandstorm and Horizon Copper acquisition that impacted our financial results. As much of the Sandstorm and Horizon Copper acquisition-related noise is behind us, I am anticipating that we will return to a steadier state beginning with our first quarter results. I'll turn to Slide 10 for a summary of recent changes to our outstanding debt. As discussed in our last conference call, we drew an additional $450 million on the credit facility on October 10 for the closing of the Sandstorm and Horizon Copper transaction, which resulted in a debt balance of $1.225 billion. Since October, we have made significant progress paying down our debt. We ended the year with outstanding debt of $900 million. And with further repayments in early 2026, we have reduced our outstanding balance to $725 million and now have $675 million available under revolver. New growth within the portfolio, strong metal prices, and the proceeds received from the Versamet shares sale have helped us reduce our debt faster than we originally expected. Based on current metal prices and absent further significant acquisitions, we now expect to fully repay the balance in early 2027, earlier than our previous forecast of mid-2027. I will end on Slide 11 and summarize our financial position. At the end of December, we had total available liquidity of $757 million between the available amount on the revolver and $257 million of working capital. With respect to further financial commitments, $200 million of funding outstanding for the warrant acquisition. We expect to fund the remaining commitment in 2 tranches of $50 million this year, with the first tranche expected in the first quarter and the second in May. Although we will work to convert the Hod Maden joint venture entrance into another investment structure, we plan to continue to fund our share of project costs during the year in order to maintain our 30% ownership interest. That concludes my comments on our financial performance for the quarter, and I'll now turn the call back to Bill for closing comments.

Thanks, Paul. 2025 was a very active year for us, and this quarter had a lot of unusual items related to that activity, introducing significant noise into the results. These one-time items are now behind us. Our underlying portfolio is performing well, and after a record year in 2025, we're starting 2026 from a position of strength. Royal Gold has the most diversified and gold-focused portfolio amongst our large-cap peers, and we believe we're positioned as a premier company in our sector. We are looking forward to sharing our vision of the future at our upcoming Investor Day. Operator, that concludes our prepared remarks. I'll now open the line for questions.

Our first question comes from Fahad Tariq from Jefferies.

And can you provide maybe some color on what the deal pipeline looks like right now? We're hearing from one of your competitors that because of this maybe potentially larger copper builds that are coming, there could be significant byproduct streams available as part of the financing strategy. So just curious what you think in terms of the deal pipeline and thoughts around bigger copper projects.

Yes, thank you for the question. I’ll see if I can get Dan Breeze on the line, who oversees our business development, to share his insights on what he’s observing.

Yes, thank you. I'm happy to share some insights on what we're observing. 2025 was an excellent year for us and the industry as a whole. Currently, our pipeline appears to be quite robust. One observation we've made is the market's volatility concerning commodity prices, but it seems to have no impact on activity levels. We've already seen numerous deals announced this year, and I would say the nature of these deals aligns closely with those announced so far. The market for third-party royalties is strong, and regarding your point about base level producers looking to enhance value by divesting non-core precious exposure, I think that’s an accurate assessment. The recent BHP, Wheaton deal supports this notion. Additionally, if you reflect on our transactions from last year at Kansanshi and Warintza, they also fit this category and demonstrate how well our product serves both sellers and buyers. Overall, it’s a favorable market to consider from the perspective of base metal producers. We're also witnessing development prospects on primary gold assets. All in all, it looks promising for us as we move into 2026. Does that answer your question?

Yes, that's great. Yes, that's great.

Our next question comes from Cosmos Chiu from CIBC.

Bill and team, my first question is about Hod Maden since SSR Mining has recently released a new technical report on the asset they operate. Were you satisfied with those figures? Additionally, are you content with the timeline they provided, given that a construction decision has not yet been made? It seems that SSR Mining is trying to engage all involved parties to reach a final decision. Is Royal Gold actively participating in any discussions regarding the go-ahead decision? Lastly, as a royalty company, what is your long-term strategy for Hod Maden? Currently, you're a joint venture partner and need to contribute capital expenditures. Ultimately, are you aiming to transition that into some form of royalty or stream? Sorry for the multipart question, but I'm sure you can address all my inquiries.

There are a lot of pieces to the question. Let me see if I can cover all.

Answer the questions that you want to answer Bill.

We are satisfied with the technical study. We anticipated the higher capital costs during our due diligence on Sandstorm and Horizon, so that wasn't unexpected. The internal rates of return indicate it's an excellent gold project. If we were in the role of operating partner, it would definitely be a project we’d want to keep. So yes, we are pleased with the technical report. Our approach to the construction decision may differ from that of an operating company. If the construction decision is postponed, it allows us additional time to explore how we might ultimately shape this project. Hence, a delay isn't necessarily negative. Rod mentioned a timeline of 2 to 3 years until production begins, which is acceptable to us. We’re not committing to investors that we'll deliver Hod Maden ounces within a specific timeframe. As joint venture partners, we’re engaged in discussions with SSR about the technical report, the development strategy, and expenses. Currently, we are acting as if we are responsible joint venture partners. Regarding our strategy, we aim to evolve this into something more familiar, minimizing risks related to overruns and operating costs, but this will take time. SSR has been focused on the technical report while we’ve been concentrating on the press release and collaborating with partners to advance toward a construction decision. I believe the progress on this matter will unfold throughout the rest of this year.

That's great. Maybe moving on to another stream or option that you acquired from Sandstorm MARA, it's in Argentina; certainly, Argentina is looking much better now in terms of supporting mining. This is an option to convert into a 20% gold stream eventually. So could you maybe talk about the mechanics behind that potential conversion? What needs to happen and potential timing here? And the payment that you need to make?

Yes. We currently have a very small royalty, and we can forgo that royalty to convert it into a gold stream. The investment required for this conversion is approximately $225 million, although that figure might vary slightly during the construction period. The economic calculations for this investment were based on a formula that included a cap, which, if removed, would result in a significantly larger investment. Therefore, we have strong economic incentives to invest this money to transform the small royalty into a substantial gold stream.

Great. And then maybe 1 last question. Looking back, as you mentioned 2025, you hit all your different guidances for commodity, but you also exceeded in other metals. Could you maybe talk about some of the details behind how you exceeded it, I think you came in at $25 million. Guidance was $18 million to $21 million in terms of revenue. What drove that outperformance? And is that sustainable? Should we expect that to be factored into how you guide other metals in for 2026?

I may turn this over to Paul. Paul, I believe the excess was primarily due to metal price. But correct me if I'm wrong there.

That is largely the case, Bill. And if you want more specifics, I mean, Martin, if you also have further information or details you can provide there, but largely was metal price.

Our next question comes from Derick Ma from TD Cowen.

I wanted to ask about Pueblo Viejo, the silver stream there. Barrick seems to be making progress from the tailing situation perspective. And I recognize there isn't much detail on the silver side. But conceptually, because of the size of the silver stream and the deferred ounces, is there a lack of incentive for the operator to prioritize silver here? And what can Royal Gold do to kind of pull that forward?

A lack of incentive. I don't think so. If you just break down the math. So it's a 75% Silver Stream, but we pay a 30% cash price. So if you take 70% of 75%, you're basically splitting the economics almost in half, and it only covers 60% of the projects. So when you do that math, Newmont actually has a 40% interest in the silver, and we and Barrick sort of have around a 30% interest. So I don't think there's a lack of incentive to do that. And I would also think that the entity that has 100% interest in economically in the silver is probably the DR government that gets royalties and taxes on it. So I don't think we don't get the sense. We go to the site every year. I don't get the sense that Barrick is just sitting on solutions because they don't see the economic benefit as a whole.

Okay, that's understood. In terms of the royalty revenue, it appears to be lower than I anticipated for Q4. Why doesn't Royal Gold give preliminary royalty revenue expectations for this segment of the business? Is it related to information rights concerning some of these assets? I know some of your peers do provide preliminary revenue figures in GEOs that include the royalty assets.

Yes, I'm actually surprised we're able to do it, to be honest. Paul, can you walk through when we typically receive the information from the end of a quarter or year until we release our financials? We start to see operators reporting over time, and we don't have a specific expectation of what it will be. Can you provide a bit more detail on that, Paul?

Sure. Regarding the information rights, we typically do not receive a lot of the royalties information until 15 to 30, or even 45 days after the end of the month or quarter. This makes it challenging for us to provide accurate estimates. Historically, we have shared our stream sales guidance on a quarterly basis. If you review our history in terms of streams and royalties, approximately 70% of our revenue comes from streams while roughly 30% comes from royalties. This could serve as a useful benchmark. We do analyze our revenue throughout the year with certain expectations in mind, but the absence of definitive documentation hinders our estimation process. I would suggest referring back to the stream release we issued and considering the 70% to 30% revenue split.

Yes, it might be a bit of Cortez and it was tricky to model that one, which throws off our estimates, but understood. Maybe one last question. Your comment on Q1, Paul, you mentioned flat sales quarter-over-quarter. That's metal sales, right, not revenue?

Correct.

Our next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek from Scotiabank.

Great. Okay. Sorry, I just want to make sure I understood. So the Q1 guidance on the GEO sales, you said that only the metals portion?

Sorry, Tanya, could you just repeat that? Are you asking if it's only on the stream side? Or we're talking about sort of total GEOs.

Okay. So you're talking total GEOs for Q1 is going to be similar to Q4 of '25, and it's going to be the lowest of your 2026 number?

That's our estimate. Yes.

Okay. Got it. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't just the streaming portion of it. And then I heard metals, and I'm like I wasn't sure what it was. Okay, I got it. Maybe I could just go back to Pueblo Viejo again. Barrick indicated on their conference call that like they're not going to get to the gold recovery that they were anticipating. Never mentioned anything on silver. So I'm just kind of wondering and the new technical report will be out shortly. I guess we can wait for that as well. But how much work is being done on this silver? I mean, obviously, the focus has been on this gold, and I understand that. Is there any concern that we may not get to what the silver recovery could be as well?

Yes, Tanya, I will ask Martin to join us and provide some background on what they've been working on recently. I'll make sure you get as much information as we have.

Thank you, Bill. Tanya, over the past year, Barrick has concentrated on improving throughput at Pueblo Viejo, and they have made significant progress. Towards the end of the year, throughput levels approached expectations, and we anticipate that this trend will continue. We believe that throughput will remain stable moving forward. In the short term, we do not expect any major changes to silver recovery. As you mentioned, long-term gold recovery expectations are lower, and they are addressing this issue. The challenges with recoveries are linked to the type of feed being used; they are currently processing a substantial amount of old stockpile material that is highly weathered and more variable than anticipated, affecting their flotation and autoclave plants. At this time, I can't provide specific insights on silver recovery prospects. We will await the technical report in March for more detailed information. However, I can confirm that they are deeply committed to enhancing both gold and silver recovery. We've spent considerable time this year visiting the site and engaging with both the operating and corporate teams, and we are pleased with the efforts being made to improve recoveries. The upcoming technical report should shed more light on the future of the operation.

I appreciate the stockpiles, but they will be part of the ore feed for the next 5 years. We need to manage that. We'll wait for the technical study, and hopefully, we'll have more guidance. Moving on to the transaction environment, I appreciate the overview of what's available. I have a couple of questions to better understand your position. First, you have around $700 million of available liquidity for transactions. Are you still targeting the $100 million to $500 million range, or are you considering multibillion-dollar transactions given your focus on debt reduction?

Well, just in terms of capital allocation, I would still always say that if we can find good investments, that's the best use of the capital. And if we stopped repaying debt or even borrowed more to fund the right transaction, that would be a priority. So we are not prioritizing debt repayment over new investments. As far as the transaction size, I think it has reverted to what we've seen historically. I think $100 million to $500 million is a good estimate. As you can imagine, with metal prices where they are, every GEO we buy is going to be more expensive. So when we refer to $100 million to $300 million it might be $200 million to $500 million at this point for the same number of GEOs, but yes, so that's really in terms of the size of investment. That's the range that we are seeing, and we are still actively working.

I've noticed that some of your competitors are focusing on their existing assets to increase their involvement. Are there similar opportunities for your company?

We're always looking. We have a great relationship with them. I think Xavantina was a great example. We were able to put another $50 million to work at an asset that has really developed the way we thought it would, but an asset that we quite like. So again, that should be fertile ground given the relationships we have and the knowledge we have of the assets.

Now just thinking of some of these larger-sized ones? And how much...

Yes, if you consider the larger companies, if Centerra required funding, I can't see Barrick approaching us regarding Pueblo Viejo. We're certainly open to possibilities. The advantage of transactions like Antamina is that if we can engage BHP in streaming, it creates opportunities for nearly every mining company, including those that might have been hesitant before. I see this deal as paving the way for further opportunities with larger companies.

Our next question comes from Josh Wolfson from RBC.

Just looking back at that first quarter production guidance that was discussed, I guess, thinking about the fourth quarter having been a partial contribution from the Sandstorm assets, first quarter will be a full contribution and then also there's some annual payments for some of the assets that are paid in the first quarter and then the inventories that are at normal levels. I'm wondering what is causing production really not to increase quarter-on-quarter?

Yes. Thanks, Josh. Martin, can you provide some insight from a production perspective? We are seeing increases, but there is always variability from one quarter to the next. Is there any additional information you can share on that?

Yes, I think it relates to delivery timing. Some of our larger assets vary quite significantly on a quarter-to-quarter basis. I would attribute the lower estimate for Q1 primarily to delivery timing overall.

Okay. So there's no material mine plan changes or seasonality we're thinking about here?

No, not at all. It's all around deliveries.

Yes. The only color I was going to add to it, Josh, is our inventory is the product of our sales policy. And what we try to do is sell metal over the period of time between delivery. So if we expect the next delivery in 21 days, we'll sell the metal we just got over 21 days. There's not an inventory strategy. The inventory at the end of the quarter is just a result of what deliveries occurred and where we are in that sales cycle?

Our next question comes from Brian MacArthur from Raymond James.

To the comment about funding Hod Maden this year to maintain your interest, I agree that makes sense. However, the funding this year is not significant. When considering the feasibility, the major capital expenses are typically a few years away. Is that how you see it now? I believe one of the goals would be to restructure before committing substantial capital, as this represents a different business model.

Yes, if we can restructure this before significant capital is invested, I agree that would be the best outcome for us. Regarding spending this year, SSR has indicated a 2- to 3-year construction period. Our spending this year will heavily depend on when we make the investment decision. As Rod mentioned yesterday, the spending was projected at about $50 million a month, which could increase. If we make an investment decision in 2 weeks, that scenario would differ from making it in a couple of months. Once we have more clarity on that, we can provide you with an updated estimate on spending for this year if we do not restructure. I just don’t currently have that figure.

With that, we have no further questions in the queue at this time. So that does conclude the Q&A portion of today's call. I'll now hand back over to Bill Heissenbuttel for closing comments.

Well, thank you for taking the time to join us today. We certainly appreciate your interest, and we look forward to updating you during our upcoming Investor Day. Take care.

Thank you all for joining. That concludes today's call. You may now disconnect your lines.