Glencore / Xstrata - public theatre Considering the panoply of advisers involved, the handling of the planned combination of Glencore and Xstrata has been nothing if not cack-handed. Proposed changes to the deal, now in its eighth month, suggest growing honesty about Glencore's intentions. In February the deal was presented as a "merger of equals." Although still touted by Glencore as a merger, it has the ring of a takeover - how else to explain why Glencore's Ivan Glasenberg wants Xstrata chief Mick Davis out within six months? Nor do Glencore's proposal to increase the merger ratio to 3.05 Glencore shares (from 2.80) for each Xstrata share and its no-further-increase statement yet constitute the full deal, though Xstrata is treating it as a full and final offer. Investors who still believe the deal is a merger should accept the improved ratio, though as a takeover the implied 17.6 per cent premium to the miner's undisturbed price in February does not remotely reflect the change of control that Glencore seeks. True, Glencore's tone on Monday was less overtly hostile than it was on Friday, when it outlined its proposal, and it would now switch from a scheme of arrangement to a takeover offer only with Xstrata and Takeover Panel consent - a gesture aimed at winning over Xstrata's board. The longer investors continue to indulge Messrs Glasenberg and Davis in their public dealmaking theatre, the more the commodity cycle turns against miners. Xstrata investors who have not already sold can fret all they like over whether the removal of Mr Davis will trigger the departure of Xstrata's operational managers and on what terms they stay. Broadly, the merger still makes sense operationally and financially. But the twisting path from February to Monday's outline proposals shows that Glencore is still a learning curve for investors. Their fear of whether they have yet seen its true colours may yet kill this deal.