Anglo American's write down - not quite as bad as Rio Tinto's

Miner setback.

Seems like all the mining giants are suffering write-downs at the moment. Earlier this month it was Rio Tinto, and now it's Anglo American, which has written down the value of its Minas-Rio iron ore project in Brazil by $4bn.

This looks odd against the positive production figures that both companies posted in the last quarter - but the mining industry is cyclical - and the move anticipates a bit of a tougher season.

So far only Rio Tinto have had to get rid of their chief exec though: their mistake  - a $3bn writedown on an African coal project - was just too big.
Cynthia Carroll of Anglo American is unlikely to see the same fate as Tom Albanese. Here's the FT:

Ms Carroll’s mistake over Minas Rio in Brazil was more forgivable than Mr Albanese’s. She underestimated the ability of Brazilian bureaucracy to delay development work. But the mine remains a valuable asset, expected to produce ore at a cash cost of $30 a tonne compared with a forecast 2013 average sale price of $120. Mr Albanese overestimated the quality of Rio’s coal reserve in Mozambique. That undercut his credibility as a miner.

But it's the season to be cautious. BHP have written down asset values, and there is speculation that Xtrata could be on its way.

Anglo American has suffered write downs. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Theresa May shows again that Brexit means hard Brexit

The Prime Minister's promise of "an end to free movement" is incompatible with single market membership. 

Theresa May, it is commonly said, has told us nothing about Brexit. At today's PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn ran with this line, demanding that May offer "some clarity". In response, as she has before, May stated what has become her defining aim: "an end to free movement". This vow makes a "hard Brexit" (or "chaotic Brexit" as Corbyn called it) all but inevitable. The EU regards the "four freedoms" (goods, capital, services and people) as indivisible and will not grant the UK an exemption. The risk of empowering eurosceptics elsewhere is too great. Only at the cost of leaving the single market will the UK regain control of immigration.

May sought to open up a dividing line by declaring that "the Labour Party wants to continue with free movement" (it has refused to rule out its continuation). "I want to deliver on the will of the British people, he is trying to frustrate the British people," she said. The problem is determining what the people's will is. Though polls show voters want control of free movement, they also show they want to maintain single market membership. It is not only Boris Johnson who is pro-having cake and pro-eating it. 

Corbyn later revealed that he had been "consulting the great philosophers" as to the meaning of Brexit (a possible explanation for the non-mention of Heathrow, Zac Goldsmith's resignation and May's Goldman Sachs speech). "All I can come up with is Baldrick, who says our cunning plan is to have no plan," he quipped. Without missing a beat, May replied: "I'm interested that [he] chose Baldrick, of course the actor playing Baldrick was a member of the Labour Party, as I recall." (Tony Robinson, a Corbyn critic ("crap leader"), later tweeted that he still is one). "We're going to deliver the best possible deal in goods and services and we're going to deliver an end to free movement," May continued. The problem for her is that the latter aim means that the "best possible deal" may be a long way from the best. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.