TERNIUM S.A. (TX): what the price assumes

boothcheck covers TERNIUM S.A. (TX) but does not put one priced-in number on it: here the defensible answer is the evidence rather than a point estimate. boothcheck publishes no house fair value, target price, or buy/sell rating. Narrative composed 2026-07-11.

Generated: 2026-08-10 · Exported: 2026-08-12 · Source: https://boothcheck.com/report/TX

Headline

FieldValue
TickerTX
CompanyTERNIUM S.A.
Sector / IndustryBasic Materials / Steel
Current price$53.74/sh
CompositionSlabs 1% / Hot rolled 41% / Cold rolled 15% / Coated 34% / Roll-formed and tubular 3% / Billets, round bars and others 0% / Other products 6%

What The Price Assumes (Inversion)

The assumption today's price embeds, recovered by inverting the valuation.

FieldValue
Inversion basiswhole-company
Operating margin (value-band context)7.3%
Operating margin (mid-cycle)12.5%
Margin compression (value-band)-5.2pp
Trailing margin (depressed year)4.5%
Multiple paid5x mid-cycle operating income

The operating-margin figure is value-band context at year 12: derived from the framework's value band, a separate calculation — not part of the priced-in solve.

The price sits below what even a 5%/yr operating-profit decline would warrant; the inversion reports a bound, not a solved growth path.

Solve inputs: computed at a 8.7% cost of capital with 4% terminal growth over a 5-year stage.

How unusual the bet is: within-range

ReferenceValue
vs own history-0.24σ
cohort percentile (of 77 peers)0
implied end-window share0%

Valuation X-Ray

The price is supported by earnings-power and growth-DCF value, while asset-based lands below the price. A value/asset-supported name, not a pure growth bet.

How the valuation models price the stock relative to the market price. Price/FV above 1.0 means the market pays more than that lens defends (expensive); at or below 1.0 the lens can defend the price.

FamilyMedian price/FVModelsReads
Asset3.29x5expensive
Earnings0.76x3justifies
Relative1.34x2expensive
Growth1.02x4expensive

Families that justify the price: Earnings, Growth Families that call it expensive: Asset

The models below discount at their own flat-beta convention rates (cost of equity 9.3%, WACC 7.7%); the inversion above states its own rate.

Per-Model Detail (n=14)

ModelFamilyFVPrice/FVApplicableMethodology
DCF Perpetual GrowthGrowth$145.690.37xyesReference only (OCF-based, capex excluded): OCF $2.3B
DCF Exit MultipleGrowth$0.00noNegative/zero FCF or EBITDA — equity value floored at $0
Relative ValuationRelativenoP/E 20.46x (blended: static sector reference 14x + trailing (TTM) 36x), scenarios: 15.3x / 20.5x / 24.6x (bear / base = reference held flat / bull), EV/EBITDA 11.03x
Simple DDMGrowth$36.531.47xyesDPS $2.64, g=1.9% (sustainable: ROE (TTM) × retention; not the terminal-growth assumption), ke=9.3%
Two-Stage DDMGrowth$93.760.57xyesStage 1: 20% for 5yr, Stage 2: 3.5% perpetual
Simple Excess ReturnAsset$16.343.29xyesBV/sh $80.55, ROE (TTM) 1.9%, ke 9.3%
Two-Stage Excess ReturnAsset$9.105.91xyes5yr excess ROE then converge to ke=9.3%
Discounted Future Market CapGrowth$33.881.59xyesRev $15.6B, growth -1% (input: historical growth; tapered), Terminal P/S: 0.5x / 0.7x / 0.8x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull, cap 6x)
Peter Lynch Fair ValueRelative$26.402.04xyesEPS $2.20, growth 2% (input: historical EPS growth), PEG=23.36 (Overvalued)
Margin TrajectoryGrowthno
Earnings Power ValueEarnings$84.780.63xyesNormalized EBIT (5y avg op income, one-time charges added back) $2.43B × (1−40%) / WACC 7.7% → EPV (no growth)
Residual IncomeAsset$6.598.15xyesBV $80.55 + 5yr PV of (ROE (TTM) 1.9% − Kₑ 9.3%) × BV; BV grows 1.2%/yr
Graham NumberAsset$63.140.85xyes√(22.5 × EPS $2.20 × BVPS $80.55) — Graham's conservative floor
EV/EBITDA RelativeRelativenoEBITDA $0.71B × sector EV/EBITDA 8.0x
FCF YieldEarningsno
SBC-Adj FCF YieldEarningsno
Ben Graham FormulaEarnings$70.990.76xyesEPS $2.20 × (8.5 + 2×15.0%) × (4.4 / 5.3%)
ROIC-Justified P/BAsset$24.502.19xyesBV $80.55 × (ROIC 2.3% / WACC 7.7%)
P/Sales SectorRelativenoRevenue $15.61B × sector P/S 1.5x
PEG Fair ValueRelative$82.500.65xyesEPS $2.20 × (PEG 1.5 × growth 25.0% (input: historical EPS growth)) → PE 37.5x
Earnings YieldEarnings$23.782.26xyesEPS $2.20 / required return 9.3% (Rf 4.3% + ERP 5.0%)
Funds From Operations MultipleRelativeno
Clinical Phase NPVGrowthno
MertonAssetno
V5 Mechanicalno

Economic-Unit Decomposition (Sum Of The Parts)

One or more material disclosed units has unresolved economics. Unknown/general is not evidence of homogeneity: segment SOTP is primary but incomplete, consolidated cash flow may remain only a secondary cross-check when every unit shares an enterprise basis, and one sector multiple or target margin is withheld.

UnitRoleValuation basisRevenueReported profitValue evidenceStatus
Steeloperatingenterprise15041.2B reported-currencywithheldunresolved no unit value
Miningoperatingenterprise567.9B reported-currencywithheldunresolved no unit value
Southern regionoperatingenterprise2331.2B reported-currencywithheldunresolved no unit value
Other marketsoperatingenterprise2016.3B reported-currencywithheldunresolved no unit value

No total common-equity value is stated. One or more material units lack a supported unit value. The displayed values are an indicative subtotal; consolidated debt and cash cannot be applied to a fraction of the company.

Solvency

FieldValue
Net cash$712.2m
Net debt / NOPAT (after-tax)-0.78x (net cash)
Net debt / operating income (pre-tax)-0.37x (net cash)
Interest coverage9.1x
Share count CAGR (dilution)0.0%
Burning cashno

Leverage and coverage are computed on normalized mid-cycle operating income (mid-cycle margin 12.5%); the trailing year was depressed.

Bullet Takeaways

Bull Case

Start with how far the price sits above the standard methods, because for a cyclical it tells you what the market is really pricing. Every valuation family reads Ternium as expensive against trailing fundamentals, which for a steelmaker is not the alarm it would be for a software company. It is the market looking through a depressed point in the cycle toward a recovery, and the recent results give it reason to. Ternium beat the first quarter of 2026 with EPS of $1.09 per ADS on revenue of $3.93 billion, with net income of $372 million and EBITDA margins reaching 12% as steel prices firmed. Management guided for adjusted EBITDA to rise further in the second quarter on higher shipments, especially in Mexico and Argentina, and improved margins.

The Mexican franchise is the core of the bull case. Ternium is the leading flat-steel supplier into a market benefiting from nearshoring and from more effective trade defenses against unfairly priced imports. Management cited a significant rebound in commercial-market activity driven by those import defenses, balanced inventories in the value chain, and seasonal demand. A domestic producer protected by trade policy in a market with structural demand from manufacturing relocation has a position that imports cannot easily contest, and steel's regional economics, where shipping costs and tariffs matter, reinforce that local advantage.

The balance sheet lets Ternium play the cycle from strength. The company holds net cash, with interest covered roughly twelve times, which means it can fund capacity expansion and its deepened Brazilian position without strain. It raised its Usiminas stake to 37.52% for about $315.2 million, increasing exposure to a Brazilian market where new government trade measures have improved the steel climate. A cyclical company with a net-cash balance sheet does not face the forced-selling or covenant pressure that sinks leveraged producers in a downturn; it can invest counter-cyclically when weaker rivals cannot. The bull case is a financially strong regional leader positioned for a steel-price recovery, with Mexican trade protection and Brazilian optionality on top.

Bear Case

The competitive disruption that matters most for Ternium is structural and external: cheap imported steel, above all from Chinese overcapacity, that floods global markets whenever Chinese domestic demand softens. The recent strength in Mexico came partly from more effective defenses against unfairly traded imports, which is the company telling you those imports are a constant pressure that policy is holding back, not eliminating. Trade defenses can weaken, change with administrations, or be circumvented through transshipment, and if the import wall comes down even partly, the pricing power that drove the recent margins erodes quickly. The bull case rests on protection that is inherently political and therefore reversible.

The cyclicality itself is the second, deeper risk. Peak earnings are not sustainable earnings in steel, and a quarter with 12% EBITDA margins and firming prices is a good point in a cycle that has historically swung hard. The price is paying as if the recovery continues, but steel demand tracks construction and manufacturing, both sensitive to interest rates and to the health of the Mexican, Brazilian, and Argentine economies. A regional recession, a stronger dollar pressuring emerging-market demand, or a global oversupply would compress the margins the price assumes, and the swing from a good quarter to a poor one can be violent in this industry.

The Brazilian exposure adds operational and legal complexity rather than removing risk. Usiminas has prioritized profitability over shipment volume amid volatile energy and transportation costs, and Ternium's deepened stake increases its exposure to a market management itself describes as more volatile. The first quarter also absorbed a $48 million loss from updating a litigation provision tied to the 2012 Usiminas acquisition, a reminder that the Brazilian position carries unresolved legal liabilities. The balance sheet is genuinely strong, with net cash and solid coverage, so solvency is not the bear case. The bear case is that the price extrapolates a cyclical upturn protected by reversible trade policy, and the steel cycle has a long history of disappointing anyone who assumed the good times would last.

Valuation

Ternium has to be read through the cyclical lens, because the standard multiples mislead on a steelmaker. Every valuation family lands well below today's price on trailing fundamentals, and the inversion implies a long runway of growth the company is unlikely to deliver as a steady rate. None of that means the stock is simply overvalued; it means trailing-earnings arithmetic is the wrong frame. Steel earnings swing with the price of steel, so the right anchor is mid-cycle profitability and asset value, not a single quarter annualized, and the methods that capitalize trailing results cannot see that.

The pattern across the methods is uniform: asset, earnings-power, peer-multiple, and forward-growth lenses all sit far below the price. For most companies that would say the price is a bet beyond any standard support, and for a non-cyclical it would be a serious warning. For a cyclical producer it more likely says the market is pricing a recovery and a normalized earnings level above the depressed trailing base. The honest reading is that the price embeds a steel-price and shipment recovery, and the question is whether that recovery is as durable as the price assumes. The recent quarter, with EPS of $1.09 per ADS and EBITDA margins at 12%, is evidence of the upturn beginning; whether it extends is the whole bet.

Solvency is where Ternium clearly distinguishes itself and it is the most decisive fact for the downside. The company holds net cash, with interest covered roughly twelve times, so it carries no leverage risk into a downturn. That changes the character of the cyclical bet entirely: a net-cash steelmaker can survive and even invest through a trough that would force a leveraged competitor to retrench or raise capital at the worst time. The balance sheet bounds the downside far better than the income statement suggests, and the share count is stable, so holders are not being diluted. The price is not asking whether Ternium endures, the cash position answers that, but whether the steel-price recovery it is pricing in proves more durable than the cycle's history would suggest.

Catalysts

Ternium's first quarter of 2026 beat and lifted sentiment. The company reported EPS of $1.09 per ADS, well ahead of forecasts, on revenue of $3.93 billion, with net income of $372 million. The headline included a $132 million deferred-tax gain and a $48 million loss from updating the provision for litigation tied to the 2012 Usiminas acquisition, so the underlying operating result is cleaner than the net figure alone. EBITDA rose 21% with margins reaching 12%, driven by higher steel prices.

The regional drivers were Mexico and Brazil. In Mexico, shipments rose on stronger commercial activity helped by trade defenses against unfairly priced imports and a seasonal rebound; in Brazil, Usiminas prioritized profitability over volume amid volatile energy and transport costs, with the climate improving after new government trade measures. Ternium raised its Usiminas stake to 37.52% for about $315.2 million, deepening its Brazilian exposure. Management expects adjusted EBITDA to rise in the second quarter on higher shipments in Mexico and Argentina and improved margins. The signals to watch are the direction of regional steel prices, the durability of the import defenses underpinning Mexican pricing, and how the Usiminas position performs as Brazilian conditions evolve.

Peer Cohorts (Per Segment, With Filing Citations)

Steel (reported)

Mining (reported)

Southern region / Other markets (reported)

Methodology Note

Fundamentals sourced from SEC EDGAR filings. Current price from Databento. The priced-in inversion and valuation x-ray are computed by the boothcheck engine; narrative composed by AI from the structured data.

Sources

Q1 2026 earnings release · Q1 2026 earnings call · Q1 2026 corporate update

View the full interactive TX report on boothcheck