Warrior Met Coal
Through the investors’ lenses
1 of 4 cleared6 of 10 criteria
Each of these investors has said in public what they look at before buying. Click a name to see how this company measures up — a tick where it passes one of their tests, a cross where it does not.
Warren Buffett 2/4
| Measure | HCC | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Owner earnings | $-74.70m | positive | ✗ |
| Return on equity | 2.7% | US median 2.8% | ✗ |
| Debt to equity | 0.07x | US median 0.57x | ✓ |
| Operating margin | 3.5% | US median 3.1% | ✓ |
Passes 2 of 4. These are the measures Warren Buffett published, applied to Warrior Met Coal’s own figures — their criteria, not their view of this company. What he looks at, and why →
Benjamin Graham 2/3
| Measure | HCC | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current ratio | 3.19x | 2.00x published | ✓ |
| Long-term debt to working capital | 0.27x | 1.00x published | ✓ |
| Positive earnings, ten years running | 5 yrs | 10 published | ✗ |
Passes 2 of 3. These are the measures Benjamin Graham published, applied to Warrior Met Coal’s own figures — their criteria, not their view of this company. What he looks at, and why →
Joel Greenblatt 0/1
| Measure | HCC | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Return on capital employed | 2.0% | US median 5.1% | ✗ |
Passes 0 of 1. These are the measures Joel Greenblatt published, applied to Warrior Met Coal’s own figures — their criteria, not their view of this company. What he looks at, and why →
Peter Lynch 2/2
| Measure | HCC | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debt to equity | 0.07x | US median 0.57x | ✓ |
| Net margin | 4.4% | US median 2.0% | ✓ |
Passes 2 of 2. These are the measures Peter Lynch published, applied to Warrior Met Coal’s own figures — their criteria, not their view of this company. What he looks at, and why →
| Basis | Payout | Why |
|---|---|---|
| GAAP earnings | 29.6% | whySwings with the commodity price, not the business. |
| Operating cash flow | 7.8% | whyBefore capital spending. |
| Free cash flow | negative | whyOCF fell $91.0m short of capex — the dividend was not funded from free cash flow. |
Nothing is marked as applying, deliberately. The basis that governs here is free cash flow, and this year it yields no ratio at all. The figure above is shown for completeness; treating it as the answer is the substitution this page exists to prevent.
Spread between highest and lowest: 21.9 percentage points. Same filings, different denominators.
Coverage rating 63 / 100 — Adequate. ? Peer standing 33/50Direction 30/30Stability 0/20
Free cash flow payout, last 6 years
| Fiscal year | Payout |
|---|---|
| 2023-12-31 | 29.2% |
| 2022-12-31 | 12.5% |
| 2021-12-31 | 3.6% |
| 2020-12-31 | 41.4% |
| 2019-12-31 | 56.5% |
| 2018-12-31 | 78.8% |
Coverage worsened sharply this year, 12.5% to 29.2%, after no clear trend before it. One year is not a trend, but it is worth knowing which direction the last one moved.
67% of the 33 energy here pay out more.
The arithmetic
- GAAP earnings — dividends declared per share $0.320 ÷ diluted EPS $1.08
- Operating cash flow — dividends paid $17.8m ÷ operating cash flow $229m
- Free cash flow — dividends paid $17.8m ÷ (operating cash flow $229m − capex $320m)
Where the figures came from
- 10-K filed 2026-02-12 · accession 0001193125-26-048914
Every one is public at sec.gov and free to check. That is the point — you should not have to take our word for any of it.
Computed by an open pipeline reading SEC XBRL directly. If any number here looks wrong to you, tell us — that is more useful to us than agreement.
Also on: rated adequate · when it files.
Who else looks like this
Every figure above is computed from Warrior Met Coal’s own filing, and every company here is measured the same way. Screen all of them on any of these twelve measures, or on the rules four investors published — free, and nothing you screen leaves your browser.
A subscription screens every company on this site at once, and turns a whole portfolio into one document — what that adds.