Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) Stock Analysis and Metrics

Investment Thesis

▲ Bull case

Cleveland-Cliffs is positioned for a significant earnings rebound in 2025 driven by the combined effect of improving automotive demand, rising hot-rolled coil (HRC) prices, and the strategic integration of Stelco, which enhances both cost structure and market diversification. The company noted that order books have strengthened substantially, with hot-rolled lead times extending from three to seven weeks—the strongest forward indicator in nearly a year—signaling robust demand recovery. Management emphasized that for every $100 per ton increase in annual HRC pricing, revenue would rise by approximately $1 billion, with the majority flowing directly to EBITDA due to high operational leverage. With HRC prices already rebounding from sub-$700 levels in late 2024 and expected to continue rising due to tight scrap markets and supportive tariff policies, this creates a powerful earnings catalyst. Furthermore, the shift toward a higher automotive mix in the product slate—evidenced by improved pull rates and new program wins—reduces exposure to lagged pricing contracts and allows faster realization of price increases, especially as only 30%-35% of 2025 volume remains under fixed pricing post-Stelco integration. This structural shift increases sensitivity to favorable spot and short-lag pricing environments, amplifying upside in a rising market. The company’s cost discipline is also a key underappreciated factor, with guided $40 per ton cost reduction in 2025 building on the $30 per ton achieved in 2024, driven by Stelco integration and operational optimization. These savings are expected to materialize more strongly in the second half of the year as inventory is drawn down and fixed cost absorption improves, meaning Q1 results may understate full-year profitability. Cleveland-Cliffs’ balance sheet strength further supports upside, with $3 billion in liquidity following its unsecured debt issuance and all secured credit capacity intact, providing flexibility without dilution risk. Critically, the company has reduced net pension and OPEB liabilities by 90% from over $4 billion to $400 million, removing a historic overhang on earnings and cash flow. The recent 25% steel tariffs, including downstream coverage, are viewed as a durable tailwind—not a temporary measure—given the administration’s avoidance of past exemption loopholes and the structural shift in domestic auto production, where imported vehicle sales now exceed domestic output for the first time. This policy environment benefits both legacy operations and Stelco, which historically outperformed under similar tariff regimes in 2018 and sells over half its output in Canada, where pricing correlates with U.S. levels and is bolstered by a weaker Canadian dollar. Finally, the new partnership with Palantir to deploy AI-driven solutions across production planning, order entry, and operational workflows represents an under-the-radar efficiency catalyst that could unlock incremental margins through better demand forecasting, inventory optimization, and real-time constraint management—capabilities not widely priced into the stock given the company’s traditional industrial perception.

Cleveland-Cliffs is positioned for a significant earnings rebound in 2025 driven by the combined effect of improving automotive demand, rising hot-rolled coil (HRC) prices, and the strategic integration of Stelco, which enhances both cost structure and market diversification. The company noted that order books have strengthened substantially, with hot-rolled lead times extending from three to seven weeks—the strongest forward indicator in nearly a year—signaling robust demand recovery. Management emphasized that for every $100 per ton increase in annual HRC pricing, revenue would rise by approximately $1 billion, with the majority flowing directly to EBITDA due to high operational leverage. With HRC prices already rebounding from sub-$700 levels in late 2024 and expected to continue rising due to tight scrap markets and supportive tariff policies, this creates a powerful earnings catalyst. Furthermore, the shift toward a higher automotive mix in the product slate—evidenced by improved pull rates and new program wins—reduces exposure to lagged pricing contracts and allows faster realization of price increases, especially as only 30%-35% of 2025 volume remains under fixed pricing post-Stelco integration. This structural shift increases sensitivity to favorable spot and short-lag pricing environments, amplifying upside in a rising market. The company’s cost discipline is also a key underappreciated factor, with guided $40 per ton cost reduction in 2025 building on the $30 per ton achieved in 2024, driven by Stelco integration and operational optimization. These savings are expected to materialize more strongly in the second half of the year as inventory is drawn down and fixed cost absorption improves, meaning Q1 results may understate full-year profitability. Cleveland-Cliffs’ balance sheet strength further supports upside, with $3 billion in liquidity following its unsecured debt issuance and all secured credit capacity intact, providing flexibility without dilution risk. Critically, the company has reduced net pension and OPEB liabilities by 90% from over $4 billion to $400 million, removing a historic overhang on earnings and cash flow. The recent 25% steel tariffs, including downstream coverage, are viewed as a durable tailwind—not a temporary measure—given the administration’s avoidance of past exemption loopholes and the structural shift in domestic auto production, where imported vehicle sales now exceed domestic output for the first time. This policy environment benefits both legacy operations and Stelco, which historically outperformed under similar tariff regimes in 2018 and sells over half its output in Canada, where pricing correlates with U.S. levels and is bolstered by a weaker Canadian dollar. Finally, the new partnership with Palantir to deploy AI-driven solutions across production planning, order entry, and operational workflows represents an under-the-radar efficiency catalyst that could unlock incremental margins through better demand forecasting, inventory optimization, and real-time constraint management—capabilities not widely priced into the stock given the company’s traditional industrial perception.

▼ Bear case

Cleveland-Cliffs faces significant near-term headwinds that the market may be underestimating, particularly the persistent weakness in automotive demand and the structural limitations imposed by the continued idling of the C6 blast furnace at Cleveland Works. Despite optimistic commentary on order book improvement, the company explicitly stated that the C6 furnace remains indefinitely idled with no near-term plans to restart, which directly reduces production flexibility and increases vulnerability to demand spikes—especially in the automotive segment where just-in-time delivery is critical. This limitation is compounded by the fact that direct shipments to automotive in Q4 2024 were at their lowest level since the pandemic, and while management noted improvement in early 2025, they acknowledged that auto contract renewals involved slight price declines, even if not as severe as competitors’ terms. The reliance on lagged pricing mechanisms remains a material risk, as only 30%-35% of 2025 volume is under fixed pricing post-Stelco, leaving the majority exposed to volatile spot and short-lag contracts; while this could benefit in a rising price environment, it also means any near-term price correction—or failure of HRC to sustain gains—would immediately compress margins, especially given that over 90% of shipments are tied to either automotive pull rates or commodity pricing. Furthermore, the company’s fourth-quarter adjusted EBITDA loss of $81 million was driven by weaker automotive demand and lagged pricing, and management acknowledged that Q4 represented a trough only if conditions improve—but offered no guarantee that the current uptick in demand is sustainable beyond seasonal or inventory-driven restocking. The significant inventory build in Q4, primarily in raw materials like iron ore pellets, was framed as preparation for demand recovery, but if demand fails to materialize as expected, this could lead to prolonged destocking, margin pressure, and potential write-downs, turning a strategic advantage into a liability. Although the company expects Q1 working capital to be neutral and subsequent quarters to generate cash, the initial cash outflow remains a near-term drag, and any delay in demand recovery could extend the working capital reversal timeline, increasing financial strain despite the $3 billion liquidity buffer. Additionally, while management highlighted progress on Stelco synergies targeting $120 million by year-end, they offered no concrete timeline for realizing incremental upside beyond general confidence in overachievement, and the integration remains subject to execution risk—particularly in aligning different operational cultures and systems across the U.S. and Canadian footprint. The company’s aggressive debt reduction pledge—100% of free cash flow toward deleveraging until the 2.5x net debt-to-EBITDA target is met—while fiscally responsible, limits flexibility for shareholder returns, with explicit statements ruling out both dividends and buybacks at current valuations, which may disappoint income-focused investors. Finally, the recent partnership with Palantir, while strategically sound, lacks transparency on financial impact, timelines, or measurable KPIs, making it difficult to assess whether it will deliver meaningful cost savings or revenue enhancement within the investment horizon, and carries inherent execution risk in deploying complex AI systems across legacy industrial operations—a factor not sufficiently stressed in the more optimistic narrative.

Cleveland-Cliffs faces significant near-term headwinds that the market may be underestimating, particularly the persistent weakness in automotive demand and the structural limitations imposed by the continued idling of the C6 blast furnace at Cleveland Works. Despite optimistic commentary on order book improvement, the company explicitly stated that the C6 furnace remains indefinitely idled with no near-term plans to restart, which directly reduces production flexibility and increases vulnerability to demand spikes—especially in the automotive segment where just-in-time delivery is critical. This limitation is compounded by the fact that direct shipments to automotive in Q4 2024 were at their lowest level since the pandemic, and while management noted improvement in early 2025, they acknowledged that auto contract renewals involved slight price declines, even if not as severe as competitors’ terms. The reliance on lagged pricing mechanisms remains a material risk, as only 30%-35% of 2025 volume is under fixed pricing post-Stelco, leaving the majority exposed to volatile spot and short-lag contracts; while this could benefit in a rising price environment, it also means any near-term price correction—or failure of HRC to sustain gains—would immediately compress margins, especially given that over 90% of shipments are tied to either automotive pull rates or commodity pricing. Furthermore, the company’s fourth-quarter adjusted EBITDA loss of $81 million was driven by weaker automotive demand and lagged pricing, and management acknowledged that Q4 represented a trough only if conditions improve—but offered no guarantee that the current uptick in demand is sustainable beyond seasonal or inventory-driven restocking. The significant inventory build in Q4, primarily in raw materials like iron ore pellets, was framed as preparation for demand recovery, but if demand fails to materialize as expected, this could lead to prolonged destocking, margin pressure, and potential write-downs, turning a strategic advantage into a liability. Although the company expects Q1 working capital to be neutral and subsequent quarters to generate cash, the initial cash outflow remains a near-term drag, and any delay in demand recovery could extend the working capital reversal timeline, increasing financial strain despite the $3 billion liquidity buffer. Additionally, while management highlighted progress on Stelco synergies targeting $120 million by year-end, they offered no concrete timeline for realizing incremental upside beyond general confidence in overachievement, and the integration remains subject to execution risk—particularly in aligning different operational cultures and systems across the U.S. and Canadian footprint. The company’s aggressive debt reduction pledge—100% of free cash flow toward deleveraging until the 2.5x net debt-to-EBITDA target is met—while fiscally responsible, limits flexibility for shareholder returns, with explicit statements ruling out both dividends and buybacks at current valuations, which may disappoint income-focused investors. Finally, the recent partnership with Palantir, while strategically sound, lacks transparency on financial impact, timelines, or measurable KPIs, making it difficult to assess whether it will deliver meaningful cost savings or revenue enhancement within the investment horizon, and carries inherent execution risk in deploying complex AI systems across legacy industrial operations—a factor not sufficiently stressed in the more optimistic narrative.

S.No.	Ticker	Company	Market Cap	P/E	P/S	Total Debt (Qtr)
1	TX	Ternium S.A.	106.22 Bn	123.65	6.64	3.99 Bn
2	NUE	Nucor Corp	55.03 Bn	16.95	1.52	6.97 Bn
3	MT	ArcelorMittal	54.04 Bn	29.82	0.86	14.42 Bn
4	STLD	Steel Dynamics Inc	31.61 Bn	19.86	1.54	4.20 Bn
5	RS	Reliance, Inc.	19.53 Bn	21.85	1.24	1.66 Bn
6	CLF	Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.	6.15 Bn	-7.02	0.32	7.70 Bn
7	GGB	Gerdau S.A.	5.42 Bn	12.45	0.37	1.97 Bn
8	SIM	GRUPO SIMEC, S.A.B. de C.V.	4.56 Bn	17.31	-	0.00 Bn

Research Tools

Datasets

Plans

Developers

Cleveland-Cliffs CLF

About

Investment Thesis

Segments Breakdown of Revenue (2025)

Industry Sector Breakdown of Revenue (2025)

Peer Comparison

Research Tools

Datasets

Plans

Developers

Cleveland-Cliffs CLF

About

Investment Thesis

Segments Breakdown of Revenue (2025)

Industry Sector Breakdown of Revenue (2025)

Peer Comparison

Create an account

Sign In

Reset Password