No point in comparing them Denny, as they r different beasts.
FMG & BHP have lower costs compared to AGO. One thing AGO's Mngmnt should have learnt since their financial debacle during the commodity cycle downturn is, to maintain lower costs (around A$50-52/t) as Fe prices recover.
FWIW, AGO shipped 14.4 MT in FY16, FMG did 169.4 MT, BHP: 227 MT.
So the shipped volume times net margin would affect their individual EBITDA or Cashflow.
With the price of Fe recovering & the AUD exchange rate at 72-75c, FMG's credit ratings have also improved as per their 20th December ASX release.
So for AGO getting a S&P Credit ratings from CCC to B- yesterday is a huge relief. Hope they carry on.
Any extra cashflow generated over the March & June quarters should b used to pay off their outstanding A$118 million debt. The sooner they get rid of it the better it is for their SP. That's basically the key message that the market wants to know, as will AGO's lenders for that matter.
--------
(Definition of CCC rating: 'one is vulnerable to nonpayment, & is dependent upon favorable business, financial & economic conditions to meet its financial obligations. In the event of adverse bizness, financial, economic conditions the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial obligations').
