Welcome to the very first edition of the free monthly newsletter of our new research community entirely focused on the mining sector, Truth Below Ground.
In this first edition of the newsletter—published monthly and dedicated to covering the key macro trends and developments in commodities and metals—we want to give you a broad overview of what has shaped 2025 so far. As you probably know, it’s been a fascinating year for investors in the sector.
So, without further ado, let’s begin.
Macro environment
The year 2025 in financial markets has been shaped by the words and actions of the new Trump administration, particularly in the realm of trade policy, but also across other areas that have influenced investor sentiment. It’s fair to say it has been a roller coaster: we went from fearing a global margin call in early April to seeing most major equity indices around the world post remarkably strong gains.
January began with a narrative dominated by the revolution in artificial intelligence and the launch of DeepSeek, a milestone that shook the global tech landscape and raised fresh doubts about the United States’ technological leadership relative to China. Very quickly, however, the spotlight shifted back to Trump’s protectionist trade agenda and its impact on the global economy, culminating in the so-called Liberation Day, which triggered an abrupt market crash.
The introduction of new tariffs—and the administration’s explicit goal of abruptly reshaping the international economic order—has been the defining theme of the year. One of its most visible consequences, although not the only one, has been the sharp decline of the U.S. dollar. This has been one of the most important financial variables of 2025. In an environment that some analysts describe as a period of growing concern about the real depreciation of financial assets (the so-called “debasement” argument), and where major warning signs in the key drivers of equity markets are mostly lacking (beyond the debate around high U.S. valuations, particularly in tech and AI-linked names), global equities have shown remarkable strength.
At the same time, geopolitics has once again added a layer of uncertainty in the background, although without triggering a direct shock in markets, with the conflicts in Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East that have remained ongoing throughout the year. Meanwhile, concerns over the sustainability of U.S. public finances have gained traction throughout the year, even if the issue seems to have moved to the background more recently. Institutional credibility has also taken a hit, as Trump’s continued attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell have raised questions about the central bank’s independence.
Even so, long-term bond yields—an important variable to watch given their influence across the financial system—remain well below the highs reached earlier in the year. They have been supported by the beginning of a new rate-cutting cycle, in a context where the U.S. economy is clearly slowing and inflation, for now, has not reignited meaningfully. The Federal Reserve, however, finds itself in a difficult position: caught between the risk of acting too slowly in an economy showing some signs of weakness (though not alarming at a broad level) and the fear that tariffs or other forces may reignite inflation. This delicate balancing act is one of the key drivers of short-term market sentiment.
Another element that should not be overlooked is Japan. The Japanese economy and its central bank are undergoing a historic transition after decades of low growth and ultra-low rates, and their decisions could have material implications for global capital flows, adding yet another layer of complexity to the macro landscape.
All in all, 2025 continues to be a year defined by uncertainty around major structural issues, with much of the global focus centered on the United States and a weaker dollar that reflects growing economic and financial tensions. The combination of aggressive trade policy, fiscal concerns, and a more multipolar global environment points to a gradual reconfiguration of the international order—something investors need to monitor closely.
Metals and commodities
Do all roads lead to gold? The “debasement trade” and geopolitics
The metals and commodities complex reflects the broader macro environment we’ve just described, with the powerful surge in gold and silver prices standing out as the most notable development. But metals such as copper—or segments like rare earths—have also been shaped by dynamics closely linked to the backdrop outlined above. Let’s take it step by step, because overgeneralizing doesn’t do justice to the nuances of each market.
Gold, the monetary metal par excellence, has broken through its all-time highs and is up roughly 60% year-to-date in 2025 and 135% over the past three years (in USD terms). Part of this move reflects the macro factors already discussed, with private investors returning to gold as a safe haven amid inflation that remains persistently above central-bank targets, a weakening dollar, concerns around U.S. fiscal sustainability, and broader geopolitical risks (see chart below). But the rally also hints at something deeper: a gradual erosion of confidence in the traditional pillars of the international financial system—namely the U.S. dollar and Treasury securities—and, ultimately, in the financial dominance of the United States.
Since the war in Ukraine and the freezing of Russian reserves in 2022, central banks—led by China and emerging markets—have accelerated their gold purchases to diversify reserves and reduce dependence on the dollar and the Western financial infrastructure. Gold is therefore consolidating its position not just as a safe-haven asset, but also as a barometer of a global monetary order in transition.
Gold ETF flows by region and the gold price (monthly)
Silver has also experienced a strong rally, with particularly sharp moves in recent months that have pushed its price to double in 2025. Its dynamics differ from gold’s because silver is more closely tied to industrial demand, making it more sensitive to the global economic cycle as well as to structural trends such as growing investment in renewable energy and electronics. Even so, it tends to follow gold’s trajectory—often delivering more explosive and lagged moves, exactly as we are seeing now.
The platinum group metals (PGMs) have also posted significant gains. In fact, platinum (green line in the chart above) has outperformed gold in 2025. The rally has been driven by both demand and supply factors. On the demand side, industrial and automotive applications continue to grow, and platinum’s role in hydrogen technologies and fuel cells is becoming more firmly established—complemented by a renewed investor appetite for tangible assets. On the supply side, the heavy concentration of production in South Africa—where structural issues with power supply and labor disruptions persist—together with lower shipments from Russia, has tightened the market. The result is a market deficit, which has provided additional support to prices in a year defined by concerns over supply security and ongoing trade turbulence.
Copper, meanwhile, has been a prime example of the volatility triggered by tariffs. It first participated in the broad market crash in early April—as a barometer of global growth and the fear that Trump’s measures could hit economic activity—and later swung sharply in response to copper-specific tariff announcements. On July 31, prices in the U.S. plunged by 20% after the metal was confirmed to be excluded from the measures. Despite these swings, copper continues to benefit from strong structural demand tied to the energy transition, electrification, and the expansion of power grids and electric vehicles, with China and India leading the way. However, the metal’s strong performance in 2025 has been driven primarily by supply-side pressures: a series of disruptions (including the accident and temporary shutdown at Freeport), project delays, increasingly stringent regulatory and social permitting requirements, declining ore grades, and steadily rising production costs.
Note: The yellow line represents copper futures traded in the U.S. (COMEX), while the blue line corresponds to the equivalent contract on the London Metal Exchange (LME). Both are shown because the spread between the two markets has been especially relevant this year, reflecting the additional volatility created by U.S. tariff policy.
In the lithium market, the excess supply created during the price boom of recent years continues to be absorbed. For months now, prices have been attempting to establish a more stable floor. Selective supply restrictions in China and expectations of solid long-term demand are providing some support, although the market remains highly sensitive to any changes in inventories or production forecasts. All of this is happening in a context where China plays a dominant role—adding complexity and opacity—and where the U.S. government has now stepped in, announcing a direct equity stake in Lithium Americas, underscoring the strategic importance of lithium. Our report on Sigma Lithium will explore this market in much greater depth.
Within the broader category of critical minerals, rare earths have moved to the center of the trade conflict between the United States and China, given China’s dominant position in their production and, especially, in their processing. In other words, the heavy dependence of the U.S. and the West on Chinese imports has fueled the rise of so-called “resource nationalism,” after it became clear that this reliance represents a major strategic vulnerability. The issue goes well beyond economics, due to the importance of rare earths in the defense sector and their military applications.
Against this backdrop, Washington has strengthened its support for domestic mining, with the agreement with MP Materials standing out as the most emblematic example: a commitment to invest $500 million and a guaranteed purchase price for NdPr—a neodymium–praseodymium alloy essential for producing permanent magnets used in electric motors, wind turbines, and electronic components, including certain military applications—at roughly twice the prevailing market price at the time of the announcement. The administration has also indicated that this will be only the first of several initiatives aimed at securing rare earth supply and reducing dependence on China.
In this environment, prices across the sector have rebounded from the low levels of recent years, as illustrated by the move in neodymium. However, government intervention through price floors significantly above market levels (as in the MP case) and the emergence of different price tiers depending on the source of supply have made price discovery increasingly difficult.
Source: Trading Economics
Uranium, for its part, may be entering a new bullish phase—particularly when looking at the long-term contract price (see chart below)—against the backdrop of a structurally undersupplied market. Demand expectations have been revised sharply higher due to the profound shift in sentiment toward nuclear energy in recent years, reflected in plans for new reactor construction, life-extension programs for existing plants, and the progress being made on small modular reactors (SMRs). All of this is happening at a time when the development of artificial intelligence is expected to require massive amounts of clean and baseload electricity.
Supply, however, continues to lag. Major producers such as Cameco and Kazatomprom either do not see current prices as sufficient to justify operating at full capacity or are unwilling to commit to the level of investment needed to bring new production online. Meanwhile, smaller projects have struggled to restart operations or face significant political uncertainty, as is the case in Niger.
In parallel, the United States has elevated its nuclear strategy to the level of a “national emergency” priority, with the partnership involving Westinghouse—co-owned by Brookfield and Cameco—marking the most consequential step so far. Washington is also signaling further measures, including the creation of a strategic uranium reserve, all aimed at reinforcing energy security across the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
Source: Cameco
Given this backdrop, it’s no surprise that the mining sector as a whole has performed strongly in 2025—represented by the XME ETF, which is up more than 70% year-to-date—with standout gains in gold and silver miners, as well as in the rare earths segment, where volatility has been extreme. There is plenty more to say about each of these areas, but we won’t go deeper in this first edition. Our aim here was to provide a broad overview of the major themes that have shaped 2025 in metals and commodities.
Additional resources
Chart of the month
This chart from Topdown Charts shows two complementary indicators that help gauge the weight investors are assigning to gold miners within their portfolios. The black line represents the GDX:SPY ratio, meaning the relative performance of gold miners (via the GDX ETF) versus the S&P 500. The red line reflects the implied allocation to gold miners, measured as their ETF market share relative to the entire U.S. equity ETF universe.
The conclusion suggested by the chart is important: despite the strong rally in gold miners in 2025, investor positioning remains historically low. Both the GDX:SPY ratio and implied allocation are well below the levels seen in previous bull cycles (2009–2011, 2016), indicating that capital flows into the sector are still limited.
In other words, if the gold bull cycle continues, gold miners could still have room to re-rate simply through a normalization of positioning and sentiment, especially given the significant improvement in fundamentals. Put differently: the market has started to move, but investors have not yet entered aggressively. That said, it is also clear that sector valuations are no longer as depressed as they were a year ago.
Recommendation of the month
This interview with Paulo Macro, a widely followed macro analyst with more than 20 years of experience specializing in commodities, offers a particularly insightful view of the current moment. Paulo argues that it is a fascinating time to be involved in commodity markets, but warns that this may not be a cycle for passive investors: it requires being active, selective, and willing to devote many hours to research. Why? In his view, because unlike the supercycle of the 2000s—driven largely by a broad-based demand boom—today’s engine is the scarcity of supply, which can lead to long periods of calm followed by extremely sharp price moves.
Paulo highlights several specific sectors where he sees strong prospects. In copper, he notes that everything today revolves around supply: an insufficient project pipeline and recent disruptions, such as the issues at Grasberg, create fertile ground for increased M&A activity and for junior miners to become the main beneficiaries. In uranium, he emphasizes the real possibility that the U.S. government moves forward with a strategic uranium reserve, which could have an immediate impact on prices. And in oil, he delivers a clear message: 2026 could be for crude what 2025 has been for gold, with accelerating demand from emerging markets and an increasingly constrained supply after years of underinvestment.
And with that, we wrap up the first edition of the Truth Below Ground monthly newsletter. We hope you enjoyed it and that it helped you build a clear picture of the main dynamics and forces shaping the sectors we follow most closely.
Make sure to visit our website to learn more about this project we’ve just launched.
And in just a few days, the real adventure begins with our first research report.
See you next time!
