Rare earth and strategic metals equities have been among the stronger-performing thematic areas in 2025, though recent price action suggests the rally has paused as investors reassess momentum. REMX has rebounded sharply from its April lows and is now consolidating below a technically significant resistance zone near $75, making it a key level to monitor.
What is REMX?
REMX is an exchange-traded fund that provides diversified exposure to global companies involved in mining, refining, and recycling rare earth and strategic metals. For traders and investors who want sector exposure without relying on a single issuer, the ETF structure can help spread company-specific risk. Performance will still be highly sensitive to commodity cycles and policy/geopolitics.
Portfolio snapshot
The ETF’s larger positions typically include a mix of rare earth producers and lithium-related names. Examples of top holdings (approximate weights, based on the fund’s most recent publicly available holdings data)
Why rare earths and strategic metals matter
Rare earth elements (a group of 17 metals) are not necessarily scarce in the earth’s crust, but economically viable deposits—and especially processing capacity—are concentrated. This creates a supply-chain dynamic where policy decisions, trade restrictions, and downstream demand can have outsized impacts on pricing and sentiment.
Industrial catalysts (refining and emissions control)
Technical outlook
After marking multi-year lows around $33 in early April, REMX rallied strongly and returned to levels last seen in mid-2023. The $75 area stands out as a prior multi-touch support zone (2021–2023), which increases the probability it acts as resistance on the first approach.
REMX weekly chart
Price has repeatedly tested $75 over the past month without a confirmed breakout. The pattern of higher lows against flat resistance resembles an ascending triangle, often associated with building pressure; however, confirmation requires a decisive break.
REMX daily chart
Scenarios to watch
Bullish continuation: A daily close above $75 (ideally with expanding participation) would shift focus to $81 as the next resistance zone.
Range continuation / pullback: Failure to clear $75 again keeps the risk of a retracement toward $68 support.
Bearish breakdown: A sustained move below $68 would weaken the structure and raise the probability of a deeper mean reversion (next support levels should be mapped from prior swing lows).
By
Mike Smith
Mike Smith (MSc, PGdipEd)
Client Education and Training
The information provided is of general nature only and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situations or needs. Before acting on any information provided, you should consider whether the information is suitable for you and your personal circumstances and if necessary, seek appropriate professional advice. All opinions, conclusions, forecasts or recommendations are reasonably held at the time of compilation but are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Go Markets Pty Ltd, ABN 85 081 864 039, AFSL 254963 is a CFD issuer, and trading carries significant risks and is not suitable for everyone. You do not own or have any interest in the rights to the underlying assets. You should consider the appropriateness by reviewing our TMD, FSG, PDS and other CFD legal documents to ensure you understand the risks before you invest in CFDs. These documents are available here.
免责声明:文章来自 GO Markets 分析师和参与者,基于他们的独立分析或个人经验。表达的观点、意见或交易风格仅代表作者个人,不代表 GO Markets 立场。建议,(如有),具有“普遍”性,并非基于您的个人目标、财务状况或需求。在根据建议采取行动之前,请考虑该建议(如有)对您的目标、财务状况和需求的适用程度。如果建议与购买特定金融产品有关,您应该在做出任何决定之前了解并考虑该产品的产品披露声明 (PDS) 和金融服务指南 (FSG)。
In 2025, the S&P 500 traded around 6,835 and was up approximately 16% year to date (YTD). Market direction remained most sensitive to Federal Reserve expectations, inflation data and the earnings outlook, with returns also shaped by mega-cap tech leadership and the broader AI narrative. The index pulled back from earlier December highs, but it has so far held above key major moving averages (MA).
Key 2025 drivers included:
Fed expectations and inflation: Inflation cooled through the year but remained sticky around 2.5% to 3%. A Fed easing bias likely supported price to earnings (P/E) multiples and “risk-on” positioning. More recently, markets appeared increasingly rate-sensitive, with the decreased likelihood of an additional rate cut until March 2026.
Earnings and guidance: Corporate earnings remained strong quarter on quarter. Recent Q3 results reportedly saw over 80% of the S&P 500 beat earnings per share (EPS) expectations. For Q4, the estimated year-over-year earnings growth rate is 8.1%, despite ongoing concerns around import tariffs and potential margin pressure.
Index leadership and breadth: Returns were heavily influenced by mega-cap tech and AI beneficiaries, even as broader market breadth appeared less consistent at points through the year.
Policy headlines and volatility: Trade and tariff headlines drove sharp moves, particularly earlier in the year. Some investors pointed to the “TACO” trade, with rapid recoveries after policy proposals were softened. Over time, similar shocks appeared to have less impact as the market became somewhat desensitised.
Valuations and sensitivity: The forward 12-month P/E ratio for the S&P 500 is 22, above the 5-year average (20.0) and above the 10-year average (18.7). That gap kept valuation sensitivity, especially in AI-linked names, firmly in focus.
Current state
The S&P 500 is about 1% below record highs hit earlier in December. That could indicate the broader uptrend remains in place, with a move back toward the recent highs one possible scenario if momentum improves. Despite the recent retracement, the index remains above all key major moving averages (MA). The latest bounce followed lower than expected CPI numbers earlier this week, alongside continued, and to some, surprising optimism about what may come next.
What to watch in January
Q4 earnings from mid-January: Results and guidance may help clarify whether valuations are being supported by forward expectations.
AI narrative and positioning: With AI-linked mega-caps carrying a large share of market capitalisation, changes in sentiment or expectations could have an outsized impact on index performance.
US jobs and CPI data: The latest US jobs report reportedly points to the highest headline unemployment rate since 2021. Cooling inflation this week may keep markets alert to shifts in rate cut timing, particularly around the March decision.
S&P 500 daily chart
Source: TradingView
Major FX pairs
Source: Adobe Images
AUD/USD
AUD/USD has been choppy in 2025. Since the “redemption day” drop in April, the move has looked more like a steady grind higher than a clean upside trend.
Key levels Recent peaks in early September and mid-December highlight resistance near 0.6625. Support has been evident around 0.6425, where price bounced over the last month.
What is supporting the bounce That support test coincided with stronger than expected jobs and inflation data, lifting expectations that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) may raise rates during 2026 rather than cut again. The latest pullback looks contained so far, with buying interest already visible and price still above key longer-term moving averages.
What could drive a breakout The pair remains range-bound, but the tilt is still constructive. If Chinese data stays firm, metals prices hold up, and the central bank outlook remains relatively hawkish, a break above resistance could gain more traction.
AUD/USD daily chart
EUR/USD
After early 2025 euro strength, EUR/USD has mostly consolidated since June in a roughly 270 pip range. This month tested 1.18 resistance, reaching highs not seen since September.
What price is doing now The recent pullback still lacks strong downside conviction. Some technical analysts refer to the 1.17 area as a near-term reference level.
What could come next If price holds 1.17 and buyers step back in, another push toward 1.18 is possible. One view is that the European Central Bank (ECB) could be less inclined to ease in 2026, which could be consistent with a firmer EUR/USD scenario. Broader analyst commentary also suggests the euro may stall rather than collapse against the US dollar, although outcomes remain data and policy dependent.
EUR/USD daily chart
USD/JPY
Year-to-date picture USD/JPY is close to flat overall for the year. After US dollar weakness in Q1, the pair reversed higher and now sits just below resistance near 158.
Rates remain the main driver Rate differentials still favour the US dollar. The Bank of Japan (BOJ) held steady for much of the period despite expectations it might act, and the recent rate increase was modest. Policy has only moved marginally away from zero.
What could shift the balance Rate differentials remain a key influence. Without a clearer shift in BOJ policy, the JPY may find it difficult to sustain a rebound. Some market commentators cite 154.20 as a chart reference level.
Rare earth and strategic metals equities have been among the stronger-performing thematic areas in 2025, though recent price action suggests the rally has paused as investors reassess momentum. REMX has rebounded sharply from its April lows and is now consolidating below a technically significant resistance zone near $75, making it a key level to monitor.
What is REMX?
REMX is an exchange-traded fund that provides diversified exposure to global companies involved in mining, refining, and recycling rare earth and strategic metals. For traders and investors who want sector exposure without relying on a single issuer, the ETF structure can help spread company-specific risk. Performance will still be highly sensitive to commodity cycles and policy/geopolitics.
Portfolio snapshot
The ETF’s larger positions typically include a mix of rare earth producers and lithium-related names. Examples of top holdings (approximate weights, based on the fund’s most recent publicly available holdings data)
Why rare earths and strategic metals matter
Rare earth elements (a group of 17 metals) are not necessarily scarce in the earth’s crust, but economically viable deposits—and especially processing capacity—are concentrated. This creates a supply-chain dynamic where policy decisions, trade restrictions, and downstream demand can have outsized impacts on pricing and sentiment.
Industrial catalysts (refining and emissions control)
Technical outlook
After marking multi-year lows around $33 in early April, REMX rallied strongly and returned to levels last seen in mid-2023. The $75 area stands out as a prior multi-touch support zone (2021–2023), which increases the probability it acts as resistance on the first approach.
REMX weekly chart
Price has repeatedly tested $75 over the past month without a confirmed breakout. The pattern of higher lows against flat resistance resembles an ascending triangle, often associated with building pressure; however, confirmation requires a decisive break.
REMX daily chart
Scenarios to watch
Bullish continuation: A daily close above $75 (ideally with expanding participation) would shift focus to $81 as the next resistance zone.
Range continuation / pullback: Failure to clear $75 again keeps the risk of a retracement toward $68 support.
Bearish breakdown: A sustained move below $68 would weaken the structure and raise the probability of a deeper mean reversion (next support levels should be mapped from prior swing lows).
The United States used 30.28 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2021, making them the world’s largest consumer of natural gas. Natural gas consumption in the United States has two seasonal peaks, largely reflecting weather-related fluctuations in energy demand. One of the biggest consumptions of gas is industrial, residential and commercial cooling and heating systems (eia, 2022).
As the world’s largest user of natural gas transitions out of summer, will this change indicate a decrease of their natural gas consumption? Could the decrease in demand for cooling be reflected on the technical charts? On a daily timeframe, natural gas has been on a steady upward trend since the end of June, in tandem with the beginning of summer in the US (seen on the chart below).
A trendline from the beginning of that trend until now can be drawn, and we can see recently that line has been broken by a daily candlestick, closing below the trendline which can indicate a change in trend for natural gas. After the strong break below of the trendline followed by multiple bearish daily candlesticks, we can consequently expect further downside movement for natural gas, after breaking through a strong support at $8.4, in all probability with natural gas currently sitting at $7.895 we could see natural gas come down to the next support level around $7.57.
For over 110 years, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has operated at a deliberate distance from the White House and Congress.
It is the only federal agency that doesn’t report to any single branch of government in the way most agencies do, and can implement policy without waiting for political approval.
These policies include interest rate decisions, adjusting the money supply, emergency lending to banks, capital reserve requirements for banks, and determining which financial institutions require heightened oversight.
The Fed can act independently on all these critical economic decisions and more.
But why does the US government enable this? And why is it that nearly every major economy has adopted a similar model for their central bank?
The foundation of Fed independence: the panic of 1907
The Fed was established in 1913 following the Panic of 1907, a major financial crisis. It saw major banks collapse, the stock market drop nearly 50%, and credit markets freeze across the country.
At the time, the US had no central authority to inject liquidity into the banking system during emergencies or to prevent cascading bank failures from toppling the entire economy.
J.P. Morgan personally orchestrated a bailout using his own fortune, highlighting just how fragile the US financial system had become.
The debate that followed revealed that while the US clearly needed a central bank, politicians were objectively seen as poorly positioned to run it.
Previous attempts at central banking had failed partly due to political interference. Presidents and Congress had used monetary policy to serve short-term political goals rather than long-term economic stability.
So it was decided that a stand-alone body responsible for making all major economic decisions would be created. Essentially, the Fed was created because politicians, who face elections and public pressure, couldn’t be relied upon to make unpopular decisions when needed for the long-term economy.
Although the Fed is designed to be an autonomous body, separate from political influence, it still has accountability to the US government (and thereby US voters).
The President is responsible for appointing the Fed Chair and the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
Each Governor serves a 14-year term, and the Chair serves a four-year term. The Governors' terms are staggered to prevent any single administration from being able to change the entire board overnight.
Beyond this “main” board, there are twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks that operate across the country. Their presidents are appointed by private-sector boards and approved by the Fed's seven Governors. Five of these presidents vote on interest rates at any given time, alongside the seven Governors.
This creates a decentralised structure where no single person or political party can dictate monetary policy. Changing the Fed's direction requires consensus across multiple appointees from different administrations.
The case for Fed independence: Nixon, Burns, and the inflation hangover
The strongest argument for keeping the Fed independent comes from Nixon’s time as president in the 1970s.
Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates low in the lead-up to the 1972 election. Burns complied, and Nixon won in a landslide. Over the next decade, unemployment and inflation both rose simultaneously (commonly referred to now as “stagflation”).
By the late 1970s, inflation exceeded 13 per cent, Nixon was out of office, and it was time to appoint a new Fed chair.
That new Fed chair was Paul Volcker. And despite public and political pressure to bring down interest rates and reduce unemployment, he pushed the rate up to more than 19 per cent to try to break inflation.
The decision triggered a brutal recession, with unemployment hitting nearly 11 per cent.
But by the mid-1980s, inflation had dropped back into the low single digits.
Pre-Volcker era inflation vs Volcker era inflation | FRED
Volcker stood firm where non-independent politicians would have backflipped in the face of plummeting poll numbers.
The “Volcker era” is now taught as a masterclass in why central banks need independence. The painful medicine worked because the Fed could withstand political backlash that would have broken a less autonomous institution.
Are other central banks independent?
Nearly every major developed economy has an independent central bank. The European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and Reserve Bank of Australia all operate with similar autonomy from their governments as the Fed.
However, there are examples of developed nations that have moved away from independent central banks.
In Turkey, the president forced its central bank to maintain low rates even as inflation soared past 85 per cent. The decision served short-term political goals while devastating the purchasing power of everyday people.
Argentina's recurring economic crises have been exacerbated by monetary policy subordinated to political needs. Venezuela's hyperinflation accelerated after the government asserted greater control over its central bank.
The pattern tends to show that the more control the government has over monetary policy, the more the economy leans toward instability and higher inflation.
Independent central banks may not be perfect, but they have historically outperformed the alternative.
Turkey’s interest rates dropped in 2022 despite inflation skyrocketing
Why do markets care about Fed independence?
Markets generally prefer predictability, and independent central banks make more predictable decisions.
Fed officials often outline how they plan to adjust policy and what their preferred data points are.
Currently, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly jobs reports, and quarterly GDP releases form expectations about the future path of interest rates.
This transparency and predictability help businesses map out investments, banks to set lending rates, and everyday people to plan major financial decisions.
When political influence infiltrates these decisions, it introduces uncertainty. Instead of following predictable patterns based on publicly released data, interest rates can shift based on electoral considerations or political preference, which makes long-term planning more difficult.
The markets react to this uncertainty through stock price volatility, potential bond yield rises, and fluctuating currency values.
The enduring logic
The independence of the Federal Reserve is about recognising that stable money and sustainable growth require institutions capable of making unpopular decisions when economic fundamentals demand them.
Elections will always create pressure for easier monetary conditions. Inflation will always tempt policymakers to delay painful adjustments. And the political calendar will never align perfectly with economic cycles.
Fed independence exists to navigate these eternal tensions, not perfectly, but better than political control has managed throughout history.
That's why this principle, forged in financial panics and refined through successive crises, remains central to how modern economies function. And it's why debates about central bank independence, whenever they arise, touch something fundamental about how democracies can maintain long-term prosperity.