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.


robert merkel 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!
Joseph Somsel 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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …