Resetting Strategy: Why critical minerals supply chain strategy matters now

The term critical minerals supply chain strategy has moved from planning memos into boardroom action. In 2025 governments and markets pushed hard on rare earths and other strategic elements. Therefore, companies that rely on these inputs must rethink sourcing, finance and risk. This post pulls together five fast-moving stories from October 20, 2025 to explain what changed, why it matters to business leaders, and what to do next. We focus on practical impacts for corporates, miners, funds and advisers. Additionally, the post highlights how credit-market stress and sovereign bond moves complicate the picture. The aim is simple: help non-specialists see the implications and prepare.

## Export controls, market moves and the new geopolitics of supply — critical minerals supply chain strategy

Governments are no longer passive players in mineral markets. In the US, policymakers signalled a new era of intervention. They plan to set price floors, build a strategic minerals reserve and even take equity stakes in supply projects. As a result, rare earths shares jumped on expectations of tighter controls and more state involvement. However, this action is bilateral in effect: China and other producers will react, and markets will quickly reprice where supply can be trusted.

For companies that make electronics, semiconductors or defence gear, the immediate effect is twofold. First, procurement must adapt: longer lead times and higher premiums for guaranteed, compliant supply will reshape sourcing decisions. Second, capital strategy must change: firms may need to consider equity partnerships with miners, pre-pay contracts, or joint ventures to secure feedstock. Additionally, governments’ willingness to step in creates opportunities for public-private deals. Therefore, firms with scale and strategic importance may access new financing but face higher scrutiny and conditionality.

Looking ahead, expect periodic volatility. Prices may spike on policy moves and then recalibrate. Yet the structural shift is clear: critical minerals supply chain strategy is now an explicit public policy objective. Companies that react early will gain both supply security and negotiating leverage.

Source: FT.com

Allied sourcing and capacity building: the US–Australia $3B pact and refining options — critical minerals supply chain strategy

Allied partnerships are moving from statements to cash. The United States and Australia announced a $3 billion critical minerals pact aimed at securing supplies outside of Chinese control. Notably, the deal includes funding for a gallium refinery in Western Australia. This type of bilateral agreement matters for two reasons.

First, it creates alternative processing capacity. Processing and refining are chokepoints in many mineral supply chains. A new refinery reduces the risk that raw ore shipments alone determine who benefits from the resource. Therefore, downstream manufacturers can negotiate more resilient contracts with clearer compliance chains.

Second, public funding and diplomatic alignment change project economics. Projects that once struggled to attract private capital may now secure concessional finance or offtake guarantees backed by governments. For mining companies and project developers, this shifts the calculus for where to invest and how to structure deals. It also opens space for longer-term offtake contracts and joint ventures with strategic partners.

For enterprises, the takeaway is practical. Procurement teams should widen their supplier maps and evaluate new refineries and hubs for long-term contracts. Finance teams should test scenarios where government-backed facilities reduce counterparty risk and make otherwise marginal projects bankable. Finally, legal and compliance teams must track export control rules and local content conditions tied to government funds.

In short, allied sourcing is not just geopolitical theatre. It is a tangible lever that can lower concentration risk and shorten fragile supply chains. Companies that proactively align sourcing and finance with these new hubs will be better positioned.

Source: TechCrunch

Rising bank funding costs and credit spillovers: what companies must factor in

Markets are signalling that credit conditions have become more complex. JPMorgan warned that fallout from the First Brands episode is pushing up banks’ funding costs. Concerns focus on hidden exposures to private capital firms and hedge funds. Therefore, banks are paying more to borrow, and those higher costs pass through to corporate borrowers.

For corporates, the implications are immediate. Credit lines and loan pricing may tighten. That affects working capital, project finance terms, and planned M&A. Firms that expected cheap bank financing for new mine builds or refinery expansions may find the terms less favourable. Additionally, lenders may impose stricter covenants or require more conservative liquidity buffers.

This pressure also changes strategic timing. Companies may delay large capital projects or seek alternative funding, such as export credit agencies, government-backed loans, or direct equity partnerships with sovereign or strategic investors. Moreover, higher funding costs amplify the value of supply security. Spending more to secure a reliable mineral feedstock becomes easier to justify if conventional financing is scarce or expensive.

Therefore, finance teams should stress-test borrowing assumptions under higher funding spreads. They should also evaluate non-bank capital sources and consider locking rates or refinancing early. In the current environment, being proactive about liquidity and funding strategy is not optional; it is central to executing any critical minerals supply chain strategy.

Source: FT.com

Securitisation and hidden leverage: layering risk into an already fragile market

Securitisation remains a powerful tool for shifting credit risk, but it can also hide vulnerabilities. Analysts argue that many deals rely on mispricing, reduced capital buffers and assumptions that tail risks are remote. When these assumptions fail, stress spreads quickly through funding markets.

For firms involved in the minerals sector—miners, refiners, and traders—this matters via two channels. First, securitised products are widely used in commodity finance and by institutional counterparties. Hidden leverage or mispriced tranches can lead to swift repricing of credit lines and margin calls. Second, sponsors and funds that back commodity projects may also be exposed to structured products. When securitisation strains appear, sponsors can be forced to sell assets or tighten lending standards, reducing available capital for new mining and refining projects.

Operationally, companies should demand greater transparency from counterparties. They should ask lenders and partners about the composition and stress testing of any securitised exposure that supports their facility. Additionally, treasury teams must model scenarios where securitisation markets freeze and bank funding tightens. That includes assessing rollover risk, collateral calls, and covenant breaches.

In short, securitisation can create liquidity and unlock capital. However, it can also magnify shocks. Therefore, firms must incorporate securitisation risk into their critical minerals supply chain strategy by improving counterparty due diligence and strengthening liquidity plans.

Source: FT.com

Sovereign bond stress, gilts and the wider cost of capital — critical minerals supply chain strategy

Sovereign funding markets set a baseline for borrowing costs across the economy. The UK’s experience this year shows how government bond yields can remain stubbornly high despite central bank moves. Analysts point to a larger pool of gilts that the private sector must absorb now that the central bank is no longer buying at scale. That dynamic pushes yields up and raises borrowing costs for everyone.

Why does this matter for mineral projects and corporate finance? Higher sovereign yields raise the cost of local financing and affect export credit agency pricing. Moreover, elevated yields can force fiscal tightening—taxes and spending cuts—that affect infrastructure spending, permitting timelines and local support for mining projects. For multinational companies, country-level bond stress increases the political and economic risk of investing in certain jurisdictions.

Companies should therefore map how sovereign funding dynamics influence their investment choices. In higher-yield environments, it may be harder to secure long-term, government-backed financing for refineries or transport hubs. Additionally, local banks facing higher funding costs will be conservative in lending. Consequently, firms might prefer cross-border financing structures, strategic partnerships or government-to-government guarantees linked to allied deals.

Finally, monitoring macro signals such as central bank policy, sovereign supply schedules and pension fund behaviour becomes part of supply chain planning. In short, sovereign bond stress is not an abstract macro issue; it directly affects project economics and the feasibility of alternative supply hubs.

Source: FT.com

Final Reflection: Stitching finance, policy and sourcing into a resilient plan

These five stories combine into a coherent picture. Governments are acting to secure critical materials and are ready to use tools from price floors to direct investment. Allies are building alternatives through funded projects like a gallium refinery. At the same time, credit markets are more brittle: higher bank funding costs, securitisation strains, and sovereign bond stress all raise the cost and complexity of financing projects. Therefore, a modern critical minerals supply chain strategy must be holistic.

Practically, leaders should diversify suppliers and processing hubs, explore government-backed financing, and strengthen liquidity buffers. Additionally, governance must be tightened: demand more transparency from counterparties and stress-test scenarios with wider macro shocks. The good news is that these adjustments create opportunities. Early movers can secure better terms, shape new hubs, and win long-term contracts. In a world where minerals are strategic, preparation equals advantage.