Anthony Milewski is the founder of The Oregon Group and an influential figure in the mining, metals and energy industries.
For decades, corporate treasuries followed a predictable playbook: Excess cash went into short-term government securities, investment-grade bonds or other highly liquid instruments designed to preserve capital.
But in an era defined by supply chain disruptions, geopolitical tension and the accelerating energy transition, some companies are beginning to rethink what it means to manage risk. Increasingly, the question is not just how to preserve financial capital but how to secure access to the physical materials their businesses depend on.
CFOs and other executives are likely to come under pressure to protect margins and their supply chains within this new environment. In this context, it may not be surprising if corporate treasuries begin holding exposure to critical minerals.
End Of Cheap And Reliable Inputs
For much of the past three decades, companies could assume that raw materials would be available, relatively affordable and sourced through global supply chains that prioritized efficiency.
The energy transition alone is dramatically increasing demand for metals such as copper, nickel, lithium and rare earth elements. At the same time, supply growth in many of these materials has been constrained by long permitting timelines, capital shortages in the mining sector and rising geopolitical competition over strategic resources.
The result is a world where commodity availability—and price volatility—can directly impact corporate strategy.
For manufacturers, technology companies and energy developers alike, shortages or price spikes in critical inputs can delay projects, disrupt production schedules and compress margins. Imagine if you are a semiconductor business and rely on gallium, or a magnet business and rely on neodymium—having a treasury could help to protect margins and your business during times of shortage and or price spikes.
Against this backdrop, companies may begin thinking about certain commodities less as operational inputs and more as strategic assets.
From Inventory To Treasury Strategy
Historically, companies have managed commodity risk primarily through procurement strategies or hedging programs using derivatives. But those tools are designed to manage short-term volatility, not long-term structural supply constraints.
Holding strategic exposure to key materials—either physically, financially or through tokenized instruments—could offer a different kind of hedge. For a CFO new to commodities, starting with basic materials that impact their business would make sense.
Consider a large technology manufacturer dependent on copper and rare earth elements, or an energy developer building grid-scale battery systems that require nickel and lithium. If those inputs are expected to become structurally scarce or volatile, maintaining some exposure on the balance sheet could serve as a form of strategic insurance.
In effect, certain commodities could begin to play a role similar to how companies have historically viewed foreign currency reserves or inflation hedges.
Lessons From Corporate Treasuries
The concept of nontraditional treasury assets is no longer hypothetical. Over the past several years, a number of companies have allocated portions of their treasury reserves to digital assets such as bitcoin. While controversial, the trend demonstrated that corporate treasury strategy is capable of evolving in response to new macroeconomic realities.
For CFOs, critical minerals could represent a more directly strategic version of that idea. Unlike digital assets, materials such as copper, uranium or rare earth elements are not just financial instruments but essential inputs into the technologies powering electrification, defense systems and modern infrastructure. As governments increasingly designate these materials as strategic resources, companies may begin to treat them similarly.
Tokenization Could Lower The Barrier
One obstacle to holding commodities in a treasury context has historically been logistics. Physical storage, custody and transportation can make direct ownership impractical for many companies.
That is where financial innovation may play an important role. The growing tokenization of real-world assets—including precious metals and other commodities—has the potential to make holding commodity exposure far easier and more liquid. Tokenized commodities allow ownership interests in physical materials to be represented digitally, traded globally and integrated into existing financial systems.
For corporate treasurers, this could create a new toolkit. Instead of holding only cash equivalents and traditional securities, treasuries could maintain exposure to strategic materials through tokenized assets, commodity-linked instruments or royalty and streaming structures tied to future production.
The Risks: When Strategy Starts To Look Like Speculation
For all the logic behind holding strategic resources, the shift comes with trade-offs.
Corporate treasuries are built around liquidity, capital preservation and predictability. Commodity exposure—whether physical or tokenized—challenges all three. Prices are more volatile, liquidity can vary and valuation is less straightforward than traditional assets.
There is also a governance question. At what point does a treasury function start to resemble an investment arm? Holding exposure to key inputs may be strategic. Actively managing that exposure begins to introduce a different risk profile—and one many governance frameworks aren’t designed for.
Even with the right intent, the line can blur over time. What starts as securing supply can drift into opportunistic positioning. What prevents treasury strategy from becoming speculative?
Accounting and audit add another layer. Commodity holdings introduce questions around impairment, mark-to-market treatment and disclosure. Tokenized structures may solve some operational issues, but bring their own uncertainty around classification and regulation.
If widely adopted, this approach could have system-level effects. Corporate demand for commodities can risk amplifying volatility rather than dampen it.
A Strategic Shift In Risk Management
Because of these risks, liquidity, capital preservation and regulatory considerations will and should remain central priorities. I am not suggesting that corporate treasuries suddenly transform into commodity trading desks.
But the broader philosophy of treasury management may be evolving. In a world where supply chains are less predictable and access to raw materials is increasingly strategic, companies may begin thinking about resources in a fundamentally different way. Instead of assuming that markets will always provide the materials they need at the right time and price, they may look for ways to secure exposure earlier in the value chain.
If that happens, the corporate treasury of the future could look very different from the one we know today—holding not only financial assets, but strategic resources tied directly to the company’s long-term resilience.
The information provided here is not investment, tax, or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
