ADM 2026 Guidance Could Reach High End If Q4 Margins Hold, 2027 Growth Signals

ADM: What scenarios could push 2026 guidance toward the high/low end, and what that could imply for 2027 growth

1) The starting point: what “high” vs “low” in 2026 depends on

ADM raised its 2026 adjusted EPS outlook to $5.15–$5.60. ¹ Management attributes the raise to (1) continued execution against the plan, (2) favorable margin backdrop across crushing and ethanol through the second half, and (3) Nutrition improving operating performance while capturing growth opportunities. ¹

They also emphasize that the range is built on specific assumptions, including continued China buying North American soybeans (progress toward 25 million tons in 2026), and for crushing/ethanol a constructive biofuels environment plus the reversal of net negative mark-to-market/timing impacts carried from 1H. ¹ They reiterate they do not forecast future mark-to-market and that mark-to-market accumulated is expected to revert mostly in 2H (mostly Q3); Q4 depends again on crush margin execution. ²

Finally, a key nuance for cadence: they expect 2H > 1H if ADM hits the guidance range, and they note a possibility that Q3 is higher than Q4, largely tied to how crush margins get locked for Q4 (North America crush “about 30% locked in” for Q4). ³

2) Scenarios that would move 2026 toward the high end ($5.60)

Below are the most direct drivers management points to that would need to play out favorably for the upper end.

A) Crush/ethanol margins remain strong and show better-than-feared Q4 execution

Management says the constructive biofuels backdrop is expected to support strong YoY growth through 2H, supported by the mark-to-market reversal; however, they caution that Q4 depends on where crush margins get locked (with only ~30% locked for Q4 in North America) and “a lot will depend on where we execute those margins in Q4.” ¹³⁴

Implication for high-end: the high end would likely require Q3 strength to carry through and Q4 crush margins to “land” better than a cautious view—consistent with their emphasis on Q4 execution and crush margin lock-in uncertainty. ³⁴

B) The Ag Services soybean program is achieved and exports strengthen

For Ag Services / AS&O, management’s stated scenario includes China continuing buying North American soybeans, and they cite buying “around maybe 1 million tons per week” and executing toward the 25 million tons commitment. ⁵ They further assume good exports of corn and milo going forward. ⁵

Implication for high-end: if purchase volumes and export flows track the assumption (or better), Ag Services results should be more supportive, pushing the consolidated EPS range upward. ⁵¹

C) Ethanol incentive economics (45Z) realize more of the operational/certification upside

They raised 45Z expectations to ~$250 million for 2026 (from ~$150 million previously), pointing to the ongoing “carbon intensity verification,” building operational processes, and production/yield improvements plus “quick debottlenecks.” ⁶⁴⁷

Implication for high-end: the upper end would be more consistent with incremental progress that expands line-of-sight toward the incentive benefit as bottlenecks and operational excellence translate into more eligible/verified production (i.e., capturing more of the 45Z uplift rather than only baseline expectations). ⁷⁴⁶

D) Nutrition execution continues with operational leverage, not just “stable demand”

Management expects Nutrition to continue improving operating performance and capturing growth opportunities. ¹ They specifically highlight momentum in Human Nutrition and discuss that flavor is expected to grow at least mid-single digit with operational leverage such that operating profit grows a little bit higher. ⁸⁹

They also cite margin expansion signals such as “margins have been up 50% again this quarter” (Animal Nutrition margin progress mentioned as part of operational improvement context). ⁵

Implication for high-end: sustained operational leverage—i.e., margin expansion continuing alongside sales growth—would help lift EPS toward the top of the range. ⁸⁹⁵

3) Scenarios that would move 2026 toward the low end ($5.15)

Management’s “low-end” outcome would generally require one or more of the range assumptions to come out weaker: margins, execution cadence (Q4 especially), or end-markets.

A) Crush margins in Q4 disappoint (despite constructive setup)

They stress Q4 uncertainty: North America crush is “basically 90% locked for Q3,” but only “about 30% locked for Q4,” and “a lot will depend on where we execute those margins in Q4.” ⁴ They also caution that Q4 depends again on what level of crush margins we execute after the mark-to-market reversal. ²

Implication for low-end: even if 2H starts strong in Q3, a weaker-than-assumed Q4 margin realization could pull consolidated results down toward $5.15. ³⁴²

B) Mark-to-market/timing reversal is less favorable than assumed or lags (near-term volatility)

While ADM states it does not forecast future mark-to-market and expects accumulated mark-to-market to revert “mostly in Q3,” it also explicitly links Q4 to margin execution and notes external volatility. ² The guidance range also says additional adjustments could arise depending on where commodity prices move. ¹

Implication for low-end: if commodity price volatility causes additional adjustments not fully offset by the expected reversal timing, results could be pressured toward the lower end. ¹²

C) Biofuels policy/macro/geopolitical and trade disruptions create margin/volume headwinds

Management highlights external variables: “conflict in the Middle East” swinging oil prices and that those rising oil prices hit via higher energy costs and packaging, with other external volatility. ² They also explicitly say they continue to monitor geopolitical policy and macroeconomic trade environment and the potential impact volatility could have on 2H results. ⁶

They further mention uncertainty sources such as Ukraine (not financially material but could bring uncertainty in global food prices) and potential El Nino effects (weather risk). ⁴

Implication for low-end: any combination that weakens biofuels economics, crush spreads, or Nutrition input costs/margins would be consistent with being nearer the low end. ²⁴⁶

D) Nutrition progress slows (less operational leverage or weaker sub-segment demand)

They expect momentum to continue in Nutrition and state medium-term flavor growth and operating profit growth driven by operational leverage. ⁸⁹ However, the backdrop is complex across Nutrition categories (e.g., supplement segment suffering due to affordability and consumer shifts). ⁸

Implication for low-end: if the operational improvements do not scale as expected across sub-segments (or if demand shifts more than management assumes), EPS could land nearer the bottom of the range. ¹⁸⁹

4) What could this imply for 2027 growth?

The excerpts do not provide a numeric 2027 guidance range, but they do provide a directional framework: ADM links 2026 results to (a) execution and margin conditions that may remain supportive, and (b) capacity/debottleneck progress and growth platforms.

A) A “high-end 2026” scenario would likely set up a stronger 2027 operating baseline

Management says they feel good about a “good exit rate in ’26, moving into ’27” and that they expect favorable margin backdrop across biofuels to continue and that the disruption has “structural damage” such that there won’t be overnight correction. ⁴⁵ This kind of statement generally implies that if 2026 operates near the upper end (good exit), it should carry momentum into 2027 via higher run-rate earnings capacity and continued constructive biofuels demand/margins. ⁴

They also highlight capacity debottlenecks bringing capacity between now and 2028/2029 (depending on location), supported by “5 growth platforms” with horizons to cover the full next 5 years. ² While this is not a 2027-specific number, it implies structural support for earnings power beyond a single quarter. ²

B) A “low-end 2026” scenario would more likely mean 2027 growth is more dependent on execution and less on margin tailwinds

Because ADM’s guidance range is explicitly sensitive to:

• Q4 crush margin execution (only partly locked, and Q4 uncertainty emphasized), ³⁴
• commodity price volatility impacting results, including that they don’t forecast future mark-to-market, ¹²
• external macro/geopolitical/weather risks, ⁶⁴² a low-end 2026 outcome would suggest fewer “margin-driven” tailwinds and a higher burden on operational execution (Nutrition performance) and on realizing incentive economics (45Z/ethanol carbon intensity processes). ¹⁶⁷⁴

Net implication: 2027 growth would likely rely more on the “structural” initiatives (debottlenecks/growth platforms/cost savings) rather than assuming the same degree of margin support. ²⁶

5) Bottom line

• To reach the high end ($5.60): ADM would likely need Q4 crush margins to execute better than feared despite only partial lock-in, continued progress on China soybean buying toward 25 million tons, strong exports (corn/milo), and continued Nutrition and 45Z/ethanol incentive progress translating into additional operating/earnings upside. ^3451769
• To fall to the low end ($5.15): the key risks are weaker Q4 margin realization, commodity-driven volatility affecting results despite expected mark-to-market reversal timing, and broader macro/geopolitical/weather disruptions that pressure biofuels/crush economics or Nutrition margins/volumes. ⁴³²¹⁶⁴
• For 2027 growth: the excerpts imply a smoother path if 2026 exits strong (“good exit rate in ’26, moving into ’27”) because management expects constructive biofuels demand/margins and has multi-year capacity/growth platforms. ⁴² Conversely, if 2026 is at the low end, 2027 growth would likely be more execution- and program-driven than margin-tailwind-driven. ³¹²