A big company called Glencore wants to join with another big company called Anglo American. They think it's a good idea because they can work together better than if they joined with an even bigger company called BHP. Some people agree and say that this team-up would be better for both of them. Read from source...

1. The headline of the article is misleading and sensationalist. It implies that there is a clear preference between Glencore-Anglo American tie-up and BHP offer, while the article does not provide any evidence or analysis to support this claim. A more accurate headline would be something like "Analyst suggests Glencore-Anglo American deal may have higher synergies than BHP offer".
2. The article relies heavily on a single analyst's opinion, which is not enough to justify the conclusion that Glencore-Anglo American tie-up makes more sense than BHP offer. Moreover, the analyst's affiliation (RBC Capital Markets) and potential conflicts of interest are not disclosed, which raises questions about the credibility and objectivity of her analysis.
3. The article does not provide any details or facts about the synergies that the analyst claims to exist between Glencore-Anglo American tie-up. For example, how much cost savings would be generated by combining their copper assets? How would the marketing division benefit from a merger? What are the potential risks and challenges of such a deal? These questions are left unanswered in the article, which makes it difficult for readers to evaluate the validity of the analyst's claim.
4. The article does not acknowledge any alternative perspectives or counterarguments that may challenge the analyst's opinion. For instance, how would BHP respond to the criticism that its offer is too low? What are the benefits and drawbacks of BHP's global presence and diversification compared to Glencore-Anglo American tie-up? How would other stakeholders, such as Anglo American shareholders, employees, customers, and regulators, react to either deal scenario? These factors may influence the final outcome of the bidding war for Anglo American.
5. The article uses emotional language and tone, such as "swiftly rejected", "too low", and "let the games begin", which suggest a negative and competitive attitude towards BHP's offer. This may bias the readers against BHP and in favor of Glencore-Anglo American tie-up, without providing any objective or balanced analysis. A more neutral and informative tone would be more appropriate for an article that claims to report on a complex business issue.

Given that you are looking for comprehensive investment recommendations from the article titled `Glencore-Anglo American Tie-Up Makes More Sense Than BHP Offer, Analyst Says`, I would suggest you consider the following points:

1. The main premise of the article is that a potential tie-up between Glencore and Anglo American makes more sense than an offer from BHP Group, based on synergies, proximity of assets, and marketing division synergies.
2. The article cites RBC Capital Markets analyst Marina Calero, who supports this view and provides some reasons for her opinion.