Why Relevance Shifts Across Strategic Metals Over Time

This article explains why strategic metals do not all respond to the same drivers, and how relevance shifts over time as technology, regulation, and industrial demand evolve.

In the past three updates, we’ve looked at how the strategic metals market has changed structurally, why availability often matters more than published prices, and how industry and governments are actively securing supply.

This week, we want to take the next step we alluded to previously: looking at how these dynamics affect individual metals differently, and why relevance shifts over time depending on technology, policy, and industrial demand.

Not All Strategic Metals Respond to the Same Forces

One of the most important things to understand about strategic metals is that they do not move as a single group.

The metals that performed well in 2025 did so for very different reasons. Some benefited from export controls and supply concentration. Others from increased use in semiconductors, defence systems, energy infrastructure, or aerospace applications.

What matters is not simply that prices moved, but why they moved.

Different Drivers, Different Timelines

To illustrate this, consider just a few broad examples:

Some rare earth elements are closely tied to permanent magnets used in electric motors, wind turbines, and defence applications. Their relevance is driven by electrification and security considerations.

Metals such as gallium and germanium are linked to semiconductors and advanced electronics, where policy decisions and export restrictions can quickly reshape supply dynamics.

Others, including hafnium and rhenium, are essential in high-performance alloys for aerospace and industrial applications, where reliability and certification matter far more than short-term pricing.

Each of these metals responds to a different set of pressures, often on different timelines.

Relevance Rotates, It Does Not Replace

An important point is that relevance in strategic metals does not simply disappear from one metal and reappear in another.

Instead, attention rotates.

As technologies mature, regulations evolve, and industrial priorities shift, additional metals can move into focus alongside those that are already well established. This is why the strategic importance of metals is not static, and why the list of relevant materials changes gradually rather than abruptly.

Understanding this helps explain why a diversified approach across multiple strategic metals can make sense from a structural perspective.

Why New Metals Enter the Picture

Against that backdrop, the addition of new strategic metals is not about chasing performance or reacting to short-term market moves.

It reflects the same framework applied consistently: identifying materials whose industrial use, regulatory environment, or supply characteristics are becoming more relevant as broader trends unfold.

In the coming weeks, we’ll look more closely at three such metals, each of which illustrates a different aspect of how relevance can shift:

• Antimony, used in flame retardants, batteries, and defence-related alloys
• Bismuth, increasingly relevant in non-toxic alloys and regulatory-driven substitution
• Tellurium, a critical input for advanced solar and semiconductor technologies

Each has a distinct use case, supply profile, and set of drivers that make it worth understanding in today’s context.

Looking Ahead

Our next updates will focus on these metals individually, explaining where they are used, how supply works, and why they are increasingly discussed within strategic materials circles.

As always, please don’t hesitate to contact us if you’d like to discuss how physical strategic metals can be added to your portfolio.