Platinum miner shows its mettle: Anglo American's spin-off climbs on London debut in boost for the City
The mining giant spun off its Amplats business – renamed Valterra Platinum – as part of a restructuring plan launched last year to defeat a takeover bid by rival BHP.
Valterra yesterday launched its secondary listing on the London Stock Exchange about a week after making its market debut in Johannesburg.
Shares started trading at 2,830p and closed up 2 per cent at 2,890p, valuing it at £7.8billion.
The firm 'briefly' considered a US listing but 'discounted [that idea] quite early on', Valterra chief executive Craig Miller said.
Instead, the firm chose London's stock market for its mining sector knowledge and experience.
And the location will make it easier for Anglo American shareholders in the UK to buy in to the firm.
Miller said: 'It's predominantly to enable Anglo American's existing shareholders offshore of South Africa to continue to hold shares in Valterra Platinum.'
The spin-off came as a 'surprise' to Miller when the plan was unveiled by Anglo chief executive Duncan Wanblad last year. It was part of a huge overhaul of the FTSE 100 company, which is listed in London.
Anglo has sold its steel making coal and nickel businesses and is planning to offload diamond firm De Beers – although a time frame has not been set.
Anglo will continue to hold a near-20 per cent stake in Valterra. Wanblad said: 'For Anglo American, this is a major step in our plan to unlock the inherent value in our portfolio as a whole, with enhanced focus on our world-class positions in copper, iron ore and crop nutrients.'
...but Indivior quits LSE
Indivior has become the latest firm to quit London's stock market for the US.
The pharmaceutical group moved its primary listing to New York last year.
And yesterday it revealed it will cancel its secondary listing in London in another blow to the City.
The liquidity on Nasdaq 'far outweighed' that of London, an Indivior spokesman said.
The London Stock Exchange last year saw 88 firms delist or transfer their primary listing – the most since 2009.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Wall Street gains, as oil prices reverse course
NEW YORK/LONDON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Wall Street indexes gained on largely upbeat corporate earnings, and U.S. yields also rose on Wednesday, while European shares closed flat and broke a two-day winning streak. U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India, saying the country has imported Russian oil. Oil prices reversed earlier gains and touched fresh lows after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated there would be an announcement later on Wednesday regarding potential sanctions against Russia over its war in Ukraine. MSCI's gauge of stocks across the globe (.MIWD00000PUS), opens new tab rose 0.72% to 933.94. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI), opens new tab rose 0.32% to 44,254.95, the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab gained 0.76% to 6,347.26 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), opens new tab added 1.16% to 21,160.02. "Earnings are seeing a mixed reaction. Particularly for a few of the AI names, expectations were just extremely high, but by and large, the earnings in aggregate have been good enough to keep a floor under the market," said Ross Mayfield, investment strategy analyst at Baird. Europe's broad STOXX 600 index (.STOXX), opens new tab closed 0.06% lower, dragged down by healthcare stocks after Trump announced a tariff plan for the pharmaceutical sector. MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan (.MIAPJ0000PUS), opens new tab closed lower by 0.08% to 654.33, while Japan's Nikkei (.N225), opens new tab rose 0.60% to 40,794.86. The health of the U.S. economy is a major focus for markets, and Wall Street closed lower on Tuesday after data showed services sector activity unexpectedly flatlined in July. That reinforced the message from Friday's soft jobs data, which caused markets to significantly increase bets on the Federal Reserve cutting rates in September. "There's this tug-of-war going on between the more concrete signs that we have seen that the U.S. economy is slowing and the fact that rate cuts are coming, which removes some of the pressure on valuations," said Samy Chaar, chief economist at Lombard Odier. Traders have been focused on tariff impacts. "The market is more focused on the fact that we're not getting maximalist tariffs, but I wonder if it isn't focusing enough on the fact that we are still getting something moderate, and more could be coming, pharmaceuticals for example," Chaar said. Trump on Tuesday said he would announce tariffs on semiconductors and chips in the next week or so, while the U.S. would initially impose a "small tariff" on pharmaceutical imports before increasing it substantially in a year or two. He said the U.S. was close to a trade deal with China, and he would meet his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping before the end of the year if an agreement was struck. Brazil's government has filed a consultation request at the World Trade Organization over U.S. tariffs. In the government bond market, Treasury yields gained ground. The yield on benchmark U.S. 10-year notes rose 4.2 basis points to 4.238%, from 4.196% late on Tuesday. Fed funds futures imply a 94% chance of a rate cut next month, with at least two cuts priced in for this year, according to the CME's FedWatch. Investors are waiting for Trump's pick to fill a coming vacancy on the Fed board of governors. Trump said the decision will be made soon, while ruling out Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as a contender to replace current chief Jerome Powell, whose term ends in May 2026. The euro was 0.71% higher at $1.1656. The dollar index , which measures the greenback against a basket of currencies including the yen and the euro, fell 0.53% to 98.20. Brent oil futures lost 0.95% to $67 a barrel and U.S. crude fell 1.14% to $64.43. Spot gold prices fell 0.33% to $3,369.62 an ounce. U.S. gold futures settled flat at $3,433.4.
Times
21 minutes ago
- Times
Bureaucracy is a spoke in wheel of e-bike revolution
Every day, thousands of Londoners choose to travel by e-bike. Whether for commuting, meeting friends or exploring the capital, e-bikes are opening up green, affordable and accessible cycling to a much wider audience. This demand is borne out in the data. Just last month Forest, the e-bike company I co-founded in 2021, reached a record-breaking 1.5 million rides across London, a 60 per cent increase from last year. While the upsides of getting more people cycling are obvious — it promotes healthier lifestyles, eases congestion and is better for the environment — we are acutely aware of the challenges that come with rising demand. No one benefits from e-bikes cluttering pavements or being parked irresponsibly. We know that. E-bikes should complement London's streets, not complicate them. So, what is the issue? Cities like Oxford and Bristol have one coherent operating area, but London has a tangled web of conflicting rules across different boroughs. One council bans parking in certain areas, another permits it freely. Some impose strict fines, others barely enforce regulations at all. This patchwork means riders are often confused about what they can and can't do. And it undermines public confidence in an otherwise transformative mode of transport. • Cut parking for second cars to make room for e-bikes, says rental firm We need consistency across all boroughs. Without it, we're opening the door to operators more focused on market share than street harmony. We're not advocating for fewer rules, in fact we're calling for more of them. London urgently needs a single regulatory framework. One set of parking standards, one enforcement model, and one operational rulebook should apply from Brent to Bromley. A coherent approach would allow riders to enjoy the benefits of cycling without worrying how to end their journey. Part of the challenge lies in Whitehall. The stalled English Devolution Bill has left London, not to mention other major British cities, without the powers to govern its mobility infrastructure effectively. That must change. Transport for London needs the authority to plan and implement a city-wide strategy across borough boundaries. • Chris Hoy joins e-bike revolution . . . but can 'weekend warriors' catch up? Forest is ready to work with regulators, not around them. We want higher standards, better accountability and smarter city planning. But that future cannot be built one borough at a time. Londoners are ready for a change. Let's give them the infrastructure and clarity they need to use e-bikes safely, confidently and responsibly. One city. One set of rules. Agustin Guilisasti is co-founder and CEO of Forest
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has driven Britain to the brink. Full-blown crisis will soon be upon us
Britain's fiscal reckoning has arrived. The £20bn 'black hole' has, according to one new estimate, doubled in size under Rachel Reeves's dubious stewardship. Most of the money we are now borrowing is going not towards servicing our debt, but the interest on that debt. Colossal off-the-book liabilities, such as public sector pensions, have been hidden from voters by successive governments. They are now falling due. For years, the country has behaved like a household hooked on payday loans. Now, the bills have come through the letterbox and we've no cash left to cover them. Even the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, traditionally Left-leaning, is warning that if the Chancellor is to remain within her fiscal rules, she must raise taxes or cut spending by £51bn. Not even the Office for Budget Responsibility can maintain the fiction that the current trajectory is sustainable. Reductions in spending are out of the question, as the ludicrous welfare row exposed. What many may not realise is that around 75 per cent of government expenditure is mandated – benefits, pensions, for instance – and cannot be avoided in the short-run. Only a quarter is discretionary – areas such as transport, or defence. This means that major spending cuts would require primary legislation, which feckless Labour backbenchers will never swallow. It also means that further tax rises, which Reeves in January insisted would not be necessary, are inevitable. No wonder asset managers are telling clients to prepare for 'very real, very targeted moves on people with portfolios, pensions and property'. Keir Starmer has refused to rule out further tax increases in the autumn Budget. Be afraid, be very afraid. How did we get into this mess? Not since 2001 has a chancellor presented a balanced Budget. Despite lip-service to fiscal probity, the desire to splurge has consistently outweighed the need for restraint. Lord, give me continence, but not yet. Politicians, of whatever stripe, have engaged in a collective delusion: that the Treasury is so awash with cash it is scrambling to find things to spend it on. Pay rises across the public sector? Green subsidies? A pointless railway to Birmingham? Bring it on. But the overall state of the public finances tells a grim story. In 2024-25, the state is projected to spend £1.2tn. Some £450bn of this will go on welfare, health and pensions – more than the entire take from income tax, National Insurance and VAT combined. The UK entered this century with debt at around 30 per cent of GDP; it's now pushing 100 per cent. The tax burden is at a post-War high, set to be around 37.5 per cent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament, yet core public services are crumbling and the crowd yells out for more. Polling suggests the public are closer to grasping our fiscal reality than politicians, with economic optimism now half what it was in July 2024. But even growing pessimism isn't enough to slake their thirst for more spending. Some 9.1 million people of working age are currently economically inactive. Over half of households are taking more from the state than they are putting in. As the number of net contributors shrinks, who, exactly, do people believe is footing the bill? More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith wrote: 'Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence... but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice.' Peace is uncertain, the administration of our increasingly wonky justice has time lags measured in years, and taxes increasingly drag us down. Council tax on our homes. The licence fee. VAT on virtually every product we consume. Vehicle Excise Duty. Congestion charges, tolls, Ulez. The sugar tax. A Digital Services tax on any online orders or subscriptions. Income tax. National Insurance Contributions raised for employers, but which in the end the employee will pay. It's enough to drive us to – massively taxed, of course – drink. And the more convoluted the system becomes, the easier it is for governments to mask the scale of the extraction and the harder it is to scrutinise – or object. Taxes should be visible and just. Currently, they are neither. This is not by accident, but design. Worse still, the public has been fed a series of monstrous lies about tax-and-spend. That it is not only necessary for the state to plunder our earnings and assets, but moral. That squeezing the private sector to fund the public mysteriously delivers growth. That the 'rich' aren't paying their 'fair share', despite all the evidence to the contrary. That we could tax the 'wealthy' without punishing the middle classes. Of all Labour's pledges, none has unravelled faster than the self-defeating promise to shield 'working people' from tax hikes. They punished businesses, and since the start of the year, employment is down, unemployment is up, wage growth has stalled and vacancies are falling. They waged war on independent schools, and since January 50 have closed, with all the job casualties that brings. The affluent, as the Telegraph this week reports, have paid their fees in advance – a luxury poorer parents, those who strain every sinew to privately educate their children, cannot afford. The list goes on. Reeves's inheritance tax assault on family farms has triggered the worst collapse in rural businesses since 2017. Non-doms are fleeing almost as fast as small boats are arriving, taking with them billions in tax receipts, spending and investment. Labour said they would deliver the kind of 'growth' that would haul us out of the post-lockdown economic crisis, but are giving us stagnation. Even if they renege their manifesto pledge not to hike income tax, VAT or National Insurance, it might not be enough. There are major structural problems in our economy – a broken planning system, suffocating regulation – to which this Government has no answer. And, at some point, tax takes begin to destroy growth, with one study suggesting each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent. We are completely boxed in. Politically, of course, breaking their tax triple lock would be a disaster. As Professor John Curtice tells me, it could prompt a tuition-fees moment – a betrayal that would be forever etched in the public's memory. Our overall approach to the public finances is self-evidently unsustainable. A retrenchment of state expenditure is coming at some point and the longer we wait the more painful it will be. We've lived in Neverland for too long. It's time to say no, we don't believe in fairies.
