Skip to main content

Pennies from Heaven: A Nuclear Stock Fund

For those of you more engaged with your financial portfolios than wewallstreet are, take a look at this, courtesy of Kiplinger:

Investors who want to ride nuclear's revival without betting on individual stocks have a new option. Invesco PowerShares last month launched an exchange-traded fund called the Global Nuclear Energy Portfolio (symbol PKN). The ETF tracks the performance of the World Nuclear Association (WNA) Energy Index, which contains 64 companies that design, construct and operate nuclear power reactors. The shares closed at $27.08 on May 8.

And the fund is jam packed with the usual suspects, minus of course Keyser Soze:

The ETF's biggest holding, at 8.5% of assets, is Areva (ARVCF.PK), a French company. "Areva is one of just a handful of publicly traded companies in the world that both designs and builds reactors," says Phillips.

Other big holdings include Japan's Toshiba (TOSBF.PK), Emerson Electric (EMR) and Canada's Cameco (CCJ), a leading producer of uranium, the raw material that becomes fuel for nuclear reactors.

Writer Amy Bickers reviews the reasons nuclear has sprung back to life and offers a definition of an ETF:

ETFs are funds that track a particular index and trade on exchanges just like stocks. ETF prices move up and down, in line with the value of the securities they hold. ETFs contain mechanisms that keep the share prices close to the value of their holdings.

Whether the electricity market in general is responsive to this kind of financial instrument, we have no idea. If you took our advice on stocks, you'd have only yourself to blame if your next home was a giant-screen TV box in a low traffic corner of your local public park.

Perhaps the more financially savvy members of our readership can weigh in on the virtues and vices of this kind of offering. For us, it's interesting that outfits creating such offerings find nuclear energy something that might appeal to potential buyers.

Comments

Anonymous said…
For anyone thinking of investing in such a fund, some general comments (and, remember, I'm just some random guy on the internet).

The first thing to note is that this is an index-tracking fund. They're not trying to pick which nuclear companies are going to make money; they're investing in all the ones the make up the index, according to their weighting in the index (which is in proportion to their size). This is in contrast to actively-managed funds, which try and pick stocks which they think will outperform an index (perhaps this index, perhaps another). In practice, some actively-managed funds do, some don't. It's hard to find ones that do it over the long term by enough to justify their higher management fees.

So, in a sense, the general idea of an nuclear-industry index tracking fund represents a good way to invest your money in the nuclear industry, without trying to pick which stocks are specifically going to do well, and without paying the excessive brokerage of buying lots of small parcels of shares - not to mention the hassle of trying to buy stocks not traded in the USA.

However, there's a big caveat here, which features rather prominently in the article itself:

Because these are narrow sector funds, they should play only a minor role in your portfolio.

Basically, while the risk might be spread across companies, there are any number of factors that might cause most or all of the nuclear stocks to tank at once.

The big scary one is of course a nuclear accident, but there are others. For instance, what if some of the renewable energy technologies start to live up to the more extravagant promises made by their backers? Or what if some startup company develops a new, cheap, and small reactor design (hello Rod), starts manufacturing them en masse in, say, India, and exports them to the world? Or, more prosaically, what if CCS technology starts to deliver on its promises, and lots of existing coal-fired power can get retrofitted with the tech, and thus a lot fewer nuclear plants are required?

A common theme on NEI Nuclear Notes has been the risks of putting all our energy eggs in one basket. The same applies to investments. I think nuclear energy has a big future, but I wouldn't be betting my entire life savings on it!
Anonymous said…
One problem with such a fund is that most companies with significant nuclear work are internally well diversified. That is, nuclear makes up only a small fraction of the overall stock value. Hence, a boost in nuclear profits will have little effect on the overall stock price.

For example, GE's nuclear business today does less than $2 billion out of a total company revenues of $175 or so.

There will be profit opportunities but they will be in services or small, specialty manufacturing. Those companies either don't exist today or are hard to find.

Beware mining companies involved in yellowcake. The spot market price is not very indicative of real market price since most yellowcake is traded under long term contract. Besides penny mining stocks are rather notorious for, shall we say, "gamesmanship."

Popular posts from this blog

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should