Rio Tinto kicked off number 2 perch, Agnico tops $100 billion for the first time

Frik Els | January 13, 2026 

Going overweight mining stocks. Stock image.

Global mining started 2026 the way it ended 2025 – with a huge rally. 

Gold now looks to have $5,000 in sight, silver’s wild swings are getting wilder, and copper is hitting all time highs with regularity. 

Mining stocks have duly responded, and after a blowout 2026, the Top 50 biggest mining stocks’ collective value now sits comfortably above the $2 trillion level reached at the end of last year.

You have to scour the corners of the mining world to find something that’s down and titanium and silicon are not exactly pillars of the industry. 

While the metal and mineral price rally is broadbased and most mining stocks in the upper echelons already sport double digit percentage gains YTD, a few underperformers stand out. Stocks of the losers (or small gainers) appear to be driven by factors beyond buoyant metal prices.  

Global mining is beefing up – and that’s before the mergers and acquisition currently being discussed.

Since inception, the MINING.COM TOP 50 was headed by two firms  – BHP and Rio Tinto – the only miners with consistent market capitalizations above $100 billion (with a wobble here and there).  

Now there are six firms with the distinction.  The latest is Agnico Eagle, (TSX:AEM) which on Tuesday entered the ranks of the triple digit billion dollar miner.  If only just. 

The Toronto-based company joins Chinese champion Zijin Mining (SHA: 601899), Southern Copper (NYSE: SCCO), the mining arm of Grupo Mexico, and Denver’s Newmont Corporation (NYSE: NEM) which rode gold and copper prices all the way to the top towards the end of last year. 

While the ascent of these counters is not surprising given gold’s glorious run and copper’s inexorable climb, the recent underperformance of BHP (ASX:BHP) and Rio Tinto (LSE:RIO), appears to have more to do with doubts over M&A.

While there is little separating them, it is striking that Rio Tinto is now in position number four, below Southern Copper and Zijin. Rio Tinto is up 2.2% on the LSE so far this year at $140.8 billion. Zijin has added 11% in Shanghai in USD terms while Southern Copper has surged by 22% in New York just eight trading days in. 

In fact Rio Tinto and BHP (up 4.6% for $162 billion) are some of the only counters that have not seen double digit gains in 2026. Rio Tinto has received the sharp end of investor skepticism over a combination with Glencore. 

Glencore in turn has gained 15.2% in value in London to $73.9 billion.  The talks between Baar and Melbourne date back more than a year and investors have had ample time to digest its prospects. 

The downsides of a deal for Rio Tinto, apart from what to do with coal, do not seem insurmountable while the upsides when it comes to copper are obvious. A merged entity would become the clear copper king with attributable production of roughly 1.6 million tonnes a year by 2028 – and when Glencore’s projects come on stream in the early 2030s it could hit 2m tonnes-plus (versus BHP and Codelco’s 1.3m tonnes). 

Rio Tinto just this week appointed three investment banks to give advice so at least who needs who more may soon become apparent.   

BHP’s lacklustre performance also appears to have an M&A angle, this time because the company has been relegated to the sidelines after more than one failed attempt over the years (including with Rio Tinto) while others partner up. 

Today a RioCore would be worth not that much more than $200 billion (a number the likes of GOOG gains or gives up in an afternoon) and it’s easy to forget that BHP flirted with this level all the way back in April 2022 when it briefly displaced oil major Shell as the most valuable stock on the FTSE. 

Trading in two other merger candidates has also been uninspiring. Anglo American (LSE:AAL) stock rose by 5.4% by Tuesday for a $46.7 billion valuation while Teck Resources (TSX:TECK.B) is 5.2% for the better at $24.3 billion in Toronto (well outside the top 20).

BHP’s odd last-minute intervention aside, AngloTeck is coming closer to reality with the EU poised to also clear the deal within weeks.   At current prices a combined entity would only just make it into the top 10. That Anglogold Ashanti (NYSE:AU) is now worth more than its erstwhile parent must sting in the offices of 17 Charterhouse (slated for evacuation).     

Apart from an operational level agreement with Glencore to explore in Canada’s Sudbury basin, absent from the conversation has been Vale (BOVESPA:VALE3). 

Long the number three most valuable and for a day or two in 2022 also worth more $100 billion, the Brazilian miner continues to drift down the ranking. An IPO for the Rio de Janeiro-based company’s base metals unit would be in 2027 by the earliest.

Mining’s traditional big 5 diversified giants – BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore, Vale and Anglo American – that trace their roots back many decades if not more than a century, not that long ago occupied the top five spots as a matter of course and constituted nearly a third of the overall value of the Top 50.  

It is not just their recent performance that stands out, when looking at a three-year (or even five-year) chart it is hard not to conclude that the old guard has not kept up with the new world of mining. 

Among spectacular gains for copper, gold and other commodity specialists with three/four or sometimes eight-fold gains in value since 2022, the geographically spread out, diversified mining model remains in the red. 

And mergers and acquisitions and spinoffs and bolt-ons, it seems, do not provide solutions for this perennial disappointment.

 

Gold helps Canada’s stocks benchmark outshine the S&P 500

Bloomberg News | July 1, 2025 | 

Stock image.

Despite ongoing trade tensions and a weakening economy, Canada’s main stocks benchmark outshone its US counterpart in the first half thanks to a record-breaking gold rally.

The S&P/TSX Composite Index climbed 8.6% for the year to June 30, higher than the S&P 500’s 5.5% advance over the same period. In US-dollar terms, the Toronto index was up 15%, mirroring the gains of other gold-heavy world indexes.

“No doubt that it’s been driven by gold,” said Sadiq Adatia, chief investment officer at BMO Asset Management Inc. Investors rushed into gold and precious metals miners to hedge some of the risks caused by US President Donald Trump’s tariff threats as well as geopolitical tensions and conflicts in the Middle East. That rush benefited the Toronto stocks gauge.

“You need to have things that can bulletproof your portfolio, and gold is the one that does that the best,” Adatia said.

Gold and silver stocks drove half of the gains in the S&P/TSX Composite Index through June 18, an “exceptional” run that was “driven by heightened uncertainty surrounding US tariffs and their potential impact on economic growth,” Bank of Nova Scotia analyst Simon Fitzgerald-Carrier wrote in a note published that day.

Four of the 10 biggest gainers through the first half of the year were precious metals stocks, including Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd. and Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. Moreover, most of the top 10 performing stocks in the index are precious metals miners, led by Lundin Gold Inc.’s nearly 135% climb.

The question now is whether the gold-led rally will fade, after prices for the metal declined at the end of June as both geopolitical and trade risks waned.

“I don’t think gold is going to have the same run in the second half that it had in the first half because a lot of the ambiguity and the uncertainty that we were facing earlier on has subsided,” BMO’s Adatia said.

Revenue forecasts for S&P/TSX members have slipped “notably” since April, and the index’s large exposure to the “struggling energy sector is disproportionately weighing on overall forecasts,” Bloomberg Intelligence strategist Gillian Wolff wrote in a June 11 note.

Still, Lesley Marks, chief investment officer of equities with Mackenzie Investments, points to growth opportunities for Canadian stocks beyond the gold story. Global investors are putting money into the TSX because of its heavy weighting toward materials, energy and financials, she said.

And Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney is “championing a very pro-investment, pro-growth and economically focused” mandate, Marks said.

She added that the S&P/TSX Composite is trading at a 17x price-to-earnings ratio, much lower than the S&P 500’s 24x valuation.

“I think that there is a fundamental story around Canadian stocks because of policy changes from our government, but also a valuation story,” Marks said.

(By Stephanie Hughes and Geoffrey Morgan)

The Wobbling Planet – It’s Destabilizing!

Robert Hunziker

June 27, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Science is under attack throughout the world. Meanwhile, there’s substantial scientific evidence that the planetary system is turning unstable. This may not strike most people as a big problem because ‘life goes on,’ an attitude that’s more and more prevalent and one of the factors behind anti-science attitudes. But if, in fact, the planetary system is becoming unstable, if it is true, life will be hell.

Johan Rockström, joint director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research/Germany, internationally recognized for his work on global sustainability, recently gave a 30-minute speech that specifically addresses the stability of the Earth system. This is a synopsis of his remarks, including some editorial comment.

“We are facing, undoubtedly, in all forms of risk assessment, a decisive moment for humanity’s future on planet Earth… I’m talking about for the first time in human history on planet Earth that we are forced to seriously consider the risks we are destabilizing the stability of the entire planet.” (Johan Rockström, Potsdam Institute speech Publica 25: Decisive Decade: From Global Promises to Planetary Action)

“We are hitting the ceiling of the biophysical processes, the hardwired process that regulates the very functioning of the Earth’s system,” Ibid.

All parameters of planetary health for human well-being have similar trajectories, sharply upwards. Until the 1950s, we had a linear system (relatively stable and predictable but unsustainable exploitation). Starting in 1955, with 3.5 billion people, an exponential rise suddenly took off, characterized by overexploitation of biodiversity, acid rain, and massive deforestation. All forms of pressure on the planet took off to the point where today we are in an entirely new geological epoch, and it’s happening within only one generation, remarkably, in the context of a stable planetary system ever since humans first huddled together around fires. It’s potentially the most momentous happening in all of human history, period!

Civilization is exiting the Holocene, entering the Anthropocene. Humans are now the dominating “force of change.” This is too new, too quick for a 4.5-billion-year-old planet system accustomed to old-fashioned ways. We’re already hitting the ceiling of stable planetary processes and starting to push through. For example, last year marked the first time in history that a full year exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the warmest temperature on Earth over the last 100,000 years. We’re starting to feel it, see it, smell it, and taste it, record wildfires, record floods, record hurricanes, record tornados, record coral bleaching, record glacial melt, record droughts, record sea level rise, record dry riverbeds, record heat deaths, record ocean acidification, record insect loss, and record marine loss. Humans are the only gainers.

The 2023 Watershed Year

According to Rockström: “We are already outside of the Holocene range of variability… let me bring you to why we are so nervous today. Why we have over the past 12 months heard scientific language that I’ve never experienced in my whole career, mind-boggling, shocking data, observations that we never thought was possible, that we would never be able to predict in our models… it’s the observation of air temperature and sea surface temperatures”:

“We have a global climate crisis.”

“We are in a situation of dire need of change.”

In 2023, a 0.3°C jump in global temperature occurred. The planet experienced a sudden 10-times increase in only 12 months; it’s unheard of.

Under normal circumstances, with the 2023 watershed year, when global temperature suddenly spikes up, it stabilizes for a period of time, but it demonstrated an alarming change in behavior and serious cause for concern because El Niño (natural warming phase) and La Niña (natural cooling phase) cycles that always influence the climate system are not having any impact, none!. This has never happened before.

Rockström: “There is something wrong. What is happening?” Honest answer: “We do not know yet.”

The rapid escalation of planetary instability has sparked unprecedented concern as the interplay of human activity with natural systems has created a volatile environment, thunderstorms become more severe, rainstorms more powerfully destructive as atmospheric rivers suddenly bring flash floods, and droughts longer, hotter.

Increasingly, feedback mechanisms include the accelerated release of methane from thawing permafrost, which is a potent greenhouse gas, and the retreat of polar ice, which diminishes the planet’s reflection of solar radiation and further intensifies warming. The urgency of the situation has led to calls for systemic change, not only in reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also in restructuring economies and societies to prioritize sustainability over short-term gains. Yet, global emissions continue, and international agreements fall short of binding commitments or fail altogether in implementation.

The risks are glaring, for example, the latest data on the Brazilian Amazon rainforest tells the story, as Earth’s richest ecosystem, the Brazilian portion of the rainforest, which is the largest part, has already tipped. It’s no longer a carbon sink. It’s a carbon source. This has ominous warning signs written all over it. For the first time, we are seeing signs of the planet losing its resilience, losing its buffering capacity, which the science community refers to as “climate sensitivity.”

We now have the evidence of what occurs as certain limits are exceeded. For example, coincident with 1.5°C, “we’ve never before seen the frequency, amplitude, and strength of droughts, fires, floods, heat waves… There’s been a 60% increase in droughts.” The signs are everywhere. The planet is leaving the all-important “corridor of life.” The planet, for over one million years, never exceeded +2°C during warm interglacial and never below -5°C deep ice age. It’s the biogeochemical system that we depend on. It is threatened.

It’s already approaching the high end of that range. There are 16 tipping elements that regulate the Earth system. Six of those are in the Arctic, which is ground zero for Earth: 1) Greenland ice sheet, 2) boreal forest, 3) Arctic winter ice, 4) permafrost system, 5) connected by the North Atlantic and AMOC. Also impacting, the Amazon rainforest, all three big systems, Antarctica, and tropical coral reef systems. These regulate the stability of the climate system.

Risk of Domino Effect

Temperatures at which a system tips from a state that helps us survive to a state of self-amplified warming include threats to the Greenland Ice Sheet, West Antarctica Ice Sheet, abrupt permafrost thawing, tropical coral systems, collapse of Labrador Sea ice and collapse of Barren Sea ice. These are all at risk. There is strong evidence that these systems interact with each other, meaning, there’s a risk of cascading impacts. Where one system triggers several others. These six systems are already outside the boundary of safe space. This is an extremely significant development for the first time in human history.

We’re at a point where we need to buckle up for a challenging journey. The probability of not exceeding 1.5°C on a sustained 10-year basis is no longer possible. No matter what course is taken going forward, “it will get worse before it gets better.” And every tenth of a degree warming has big impact going forward. Along those lines, science has identified big costs to the global economy based upon current economics with up to 20% costs over the next decades as a result of loss of planetary stability.

The amount of time remaining to take mitigation measures is running short. Based upon analyses by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we only have 200 Gt CO2 remaining in the global carbon budget to achieve a 50/50 chance of holding to 1.5°C, after an expected upcoming overshoot to 1.7°C. That’s five years of global emissions. Five years to accomplish “decades of work” to hopefully hold the line.

Positive Signs Within a Narrow Window of Opportunity

Efforts are being made to harness innovative technologies and traditional ecological knowledge to mitigate. From reforestation projects aimed at sequestering carbon to advancements in renewable energy, the pathways for resilience are there. However, time is running out; incremental progress will no longer suffice to prevent catastrophic outcomes. A lot needs to squeeze into the next five years, or all bets are off.

There are some favorable signs, for example, renewables are on a strong pathway in parts of the world economy, 90% of vehicle sales in Norway today are fully electric. In Denmark, the EV market share is almost 60%.

Rockström: “As of today, we are in a danger zone. But we still have an opportunity to turn this around.”

Or does the strong anti-science political movement, emanating from the United States throughout the world, throw a wet blanket on the crucial five years ahead?

Useful link: Resources for Researchers and Scholars Under Threat in the United States, National Academies, Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.

WOBBLIES

 

India’s Foreign Trade: How Free Can it be?

Arun Kumar | 28 May 2025

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The argument that India should lower tariffs and allow import competition is a generalist one, inconsiderate of several economic and political factors.

A case is being made out for India to lower tariffs and allow import competition. It is added that this would benefit India irrespective of what President Trump wants. The PM addressing the 10th NITI Aayog Governing Council meeting suggested that the States should leverage the Free Trade Agreements (FTA) India is signing with several countries. In other words, the FTAs are going to be the new normal. Till now, India has had adverse experience with FTAs and that is why protectionism was increased during PM Modi’s first two terms.

Proponents of free trade have approved of the cuts in tariffs in the Union Budget 2025-26. They argue that India should offer greater market access for imports just as it seeks access from others. Is this just given that different countries are at different levels of development, and especially since the USA is going protectionist? 

In quick succession, twice Trump has asked the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, to build in the US and not in India. This also undermines foreign investment in India. This is inopportune currently, when net foreign investment in India has precipitously fallen by 96 percent. India needs more investment to boost its growth. 

India’s Experience With Opening up

In the 1980s, India initiated opening its markets to increase imports in the hope that soon exports would rise – the idea of a J-curve. It was said that India imports too little. The result was a sharp rise in foreign debt in spite of a surge in foreign remittances from the Gulf. 

By 1988-89, a foreign exchange crisis ensued, triggered by the Gulf crisis and India came close to defaulting on debt repayment. It had to seek adjustment from the IMF and loans from the World Bank.

India’s tariffs have been a result of multilateral negotiations in the WTO involving give and take across nations. India gave concessions in TRIPS, TRIMS, Services, etc. President Trump is repudiating all this so as to bring back into the USA, manufacturing and jobs that have migrated to China, etc., because of the big wage differentials. But, this would require the USA to permanently levy high ‘protectionist’ tariffs. 

Other nations too would levy high reciprocal tariffs on US imports. This would lead to decline in trade with the US, inflation and fall in demand. Each nation would then look for other markets to sell what they were selling to the USA. It would be a godsend for them if India cuts tariffs in general and unilaterally.  

India’s experience with FTAs with Korea, Australia and ASEAN has not been promising. The trade deficit has increased due to a surge of imports. So, bilateral agreements have not helped in boosting India’s manufacturing and trade. Though controversial, it is suggested that India’s share of manufacturing (at current prices) has declined in recent times. 

India’s difficulties have also come in the way of early completion of negotiations on FTAs with the UK, EU and others. An agreement has now been reached with the UK but it remains to be seen how beneficial it would be to India. So, a general argument in favour of lower tariffs and allowing more imports is not justified by India’s recent experience.

Free Trade Limitations

Allowing import competition is an argument for ‘free trade’. It may hold in the hypothetical ‘first best’ situation. But the reality is ‘second best’ since there are distortions. If India opens up while other nations use tariff and non-tariff barriers to protect their economy, the Indian economy would be swamped. This is also President Trump’s argument for protecting the US economy by imposing high tariffs. So, under the circumstances, multilateral agreement, like under WTO, is required on not only tariffs but the wider trade. Unfortunately, President Trump is undoing WTO gains.

If the US feels the need to protect itself then India stands little chance under free trade. The argument for free trade is based on ‘comparative advantage’. It assumes that capital and labour can smoothly switch across sectors. That is far from the reality. India has disguised unemployment (surplus labour) in agriculture and trade because neither is there any alternative work nor is it possible to generate self-employment, given the lack of access to capital. 

Free trade leads to differentiation across sectors and sections of society. There are gainers and losers from it. For instance, India cannot afford to open agriculture as demanded by President Trump. Most Indian farmers are small and marginal, cultivating less than 5 acres of land. They have little capital, weak access to credit and incomes close to the poverty line. This is unlike an average American farmer who is big by Indian scale and reportedly gets an average subsidy of Rs.26 lakh per annum. So, opening up Indian agriculture under free trade would impact adversely 60% of Indians who directly or indirectly depend on agriculture. Even Indian industry has hardly benefited from free trade agreements already signed. 

Technology: Crux of Competitiveness 

India’s technological weakness needs to be factored into any argument for free trade. It is hard to compete on equal terms with those who have developed technology. There is the ‘infant industry’ argument. Namely, industry needs protection to develop otherwise it would die a premature death. But, how long can the excuse of the infant industry argument be used? 

As long as the nation lacks the capability to develop technology and that depends on its R&D expenditures. India has been a laggard, spending 0.65 percent of its GDP, since the private sector invests little on R&D. Other dynamic nations spend 2 to 4 percent of their GDP on R&D.

Technology is a moving frontier. Advanced technology of yesterday becomes intermediate and low technology later on. So, India has moved up the technology ladder but has largely been at the intermediate and low technology levels. So, it has to compete with the other developing countries and that leads to adverse income terms of trade.  

Kaldor argued that there is an ‘advantage of a late start’. That is, those who are late developers have the technology path laid out and they can advance rapidly. But that requires R&D capability and in its absence, there is a ‘disadvantage of a late start’. India is suffering from this given its poor R&D effort. Further, modern technologies are hugely expensive and most developing countries are unable to invest that kind of funds. India could spend a lot more but this has not received the priority it deserves.

In brief, making a general argument that India should lower tariffs and allow import competition does not factor in a variety of real life economic and political factors.

Arun Kumar is a Retired Professor of Economics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: The Leaflet

OLIGOPOLY

Hungary's richest see €5bn surge in wealth, with Orban allies among biggest gainers

Prime Minister Viktor Orban (right) and Lorinc Meszaros (left) have been friends since they were at school together. / bne IntelliNews

By bne IntelliNews May 23, 2025

Hungary’s 100 wealthiest individuals saw their combined fortunes surge by a record HUF2 trillion (€5bn) over the past year, lifting the total above HUF11 trillion for the first time, according to the 24th annual edition of the 100 Richest Hungarians ranking.

The widening gulf between wealth accumulation among politically connected elites and Hungary’s sluggish economy underscores the imbalances in Orban’s state-driven economic model. While the economy stagnated last year, inching up by just 0.1% in 2024, fortunes linked to the ruling elite posted substantial gains.

"This scale of enrichment is striking given the broader stagnation," said Peter Szakonyi, editor of the ranking. He noted that individuals with close government ties experienced the most rapid growth in wealth.

Lorinc Meszaros, the former gas-fitter and childhood friend of the prime minister, retained the top spot with a fortune of HUF1.42 trillion, up from HUF990bn in 2024, equal to 1.6% of GDP.

Meszaros widely seen as the Orban regime’s chief economic beneficiary. He has grown his fortune nearly 200-fold since 2015 after the fallout of the former Fidesz cashier Lajos Simicska with the prime minister. The wealth of the former small-town entrepreneur was just HUF8bn ten years ago.

OTP Bank chairman and CEO Sándor Csanyi was ranked second with HUF820bn, followed by industrialist Zsolt Felcsuti in third with HUF486bn. He is the owner of MPF Industry Group is a Switzerland-based multinational corporation, which controls several European industrial companies.

Gellert Jaszai, CEO of listed technology and defence group 4iG, was one of the biggest climbers on Hungary’s 2024 rich list, breaking into the top 10 after his wealth nearly doubled to HUF264bn (€670mn). His rise reflects 4iG’s growing footprint in defence, telecommunications and space technology, sectors the government has earmarked as strategic priorities.

The company has recently signed partnership agreements with various space groups. He was part of the Hungarian delegation to Washington last year and held discussions with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk in December. Earlier this year, Gellert meet with SpaceX senior vice president Tim Hughes a week ago.  Investor confidence in 4iG has soared on the back of these developments, helping the stock rally more than 90% so far this year.

Also making a significant leap up the rankings was Istvan Tiborcz, the son-in-law of Orban, whose wealth surged by 80% over the past year to reach HUF188bn, propelling him to 11th place on the list. Tiborcz, whose business interests span real estate, energy and finance, has seen rapid growth across several of his ventures, benefiting from favourable regulatory conditions and steady access to state-linked projects.

While the top seven positions remain unchanged from last year, shifts further down the ranking highlight an increasing concentration of wealth among politically connected businessmen. The threshold for inclusion in the top 100 has also risen, with a minimum net worth of HUF20bn (€50mn) now required to make the cut.

The ranking is based on publicly available corporate data. Assets held abroad or via opaque private equity structures are excluded.

A new edition of Hungary’s 50 most influential people, based on the votes of 11 political analysts, reaffirms Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s dominance at the top of the rankings. He is followed by banking magnate Sandor Csanyi, construction and energy tycoon Lorinc Meszaros and Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto.

Former insider-turned-critic of the Orban regime, head of Tisza Party Peter Magyar rocketed 53 places to land in 16th position.