Culper Research, the short seller, called NexGen Energy, "an insider enrichment scheme with substantial downside", the latter part based on an allegation that its Rook I uranium deposit’s are overstated by 43% to 62%.
It states, “Named executives have extracted over $140 million CAD in the past decade, with $78.5 million to CEO Curyer alone. We estimate total remuneration to NexGen’s board has been over $66 million over the same period. The company currently holds 10 board members. NexGen lists 8 of 10 directors as independent, but multiple directors hold overlapping decades-long ties to management via NxGold, Mega Uranium, Tigers Realm, and Queen’s Road Capital. We estimate insiders and their affiliates have sold $275 million in stock in the past ~3 years alone. NexGen has generated zero revenue in its entire public history, but does sponsor at least five professional sports teams, including Aston Martin’s Formula One team."
I have not specifically looked at Constellation Energy. They have struck a deal with Microsoft to resurrect the Three Mile Island nuclear facility. That is a double edged sword. It's great to have a stake source of revenue, but it's also incredibly high customer concentration risk.
I would love to hear your views on CEG if you have researched them from an investment perspective.
Thanks I'm looking at Space-Tech companies with both exposure to National defense and orbital datacenters regarding solar arrays in space. I'm not so bullish on Nuclear or SMRs more so the Neo Clouds that have invested in renewable cheap energy.
There’s been some talk about whether hosting data centres in space could help solve the growing challenges on Earth. There are benefits in respect of power and heat issues, but in reality it introduces far bigger problems than it solves. Space-based data centres would be vastly more expensive to finance than terrestrial ones, and the complexity and cost of ongoing servicing and maintenance shouldn’t be underestimated. On top of that, you still have to deal with the practical challenge of transmitting enormous volumes of data to and from orbit.
It’s an idea that gets talked up and Elon Musk has waxed lyrical about concepts like this, but he also has a track record of over-promising and under-delivering.
Bringing the discussion back down to Earth, regardless of your own political views, if governments and industries are serious about hitting net-zero carbon targets by 2050, nuclear power, and in particular small modular reactors (SMRs), looks like one of the most credible paths forward. Many heavy industries (chemicals, steel, etc) consume such vast amounts of energy that there is no realistic way to materially reduce their carbon footprint without a major shift in how that power is generated. For a large portion of these sectors, SMRs could offer a scalable, reliable, low-carbon baseload solution.
Hydrogen is often cited as the main alternative, but it comes with its own significant technical, economic and infrastructure challenges. In that context, nuclear increasingly looks like the more practical and dependable option for deep decarbonisation, especially for energy-intensive applications like data centres and heavy industry.
Just my thoughts for what they’re worth. I hope it helps.
I really enjoyed your article. I think you are spot on in regards to nuclear energy. It is by far the best and most efficient form of baseload power. I have and will continue to invest in the nuclear stack as your article warrants. However, I believe in the short term, nat gas is going to be the winner because it is superior form of energy than renewables in term of being both a baseload and dispatchable energy source. I also am not convince that as we get to a certain point of how much of our grid power comes from renewables that the grid will remain stable. The fact that renewables are intermittent and lack inertia, makes them an inferior source of energy. Will batteries help this problem, of course, but this is still limited. What are your thoughts to this concern?
The instability and weaknesses in grid infrastructure are valid. They add to the SMR investment thesis which is off grid, on location.
Batteries are inefficient. Power is lost when it is transferred to and from a battery, which is far from ideal. Batteries also become more inefficient with age. Then you have huge issues in relation to the rare earth minerals needed to produce new batteries, and the environmental issue of how best to dispose of them at end of life. For me a battery is like putting a band-aid plaster over a gaping wound. Better than nothing, but far from the best option.
The meteoric rise of NuScale Power (SMR) seems to have hit a significant technical and psychological wall, transitioning the narrative from AI-fueled euphoria to a reality check. The primary catalyst for this shift was the strategic exit of its largest shareholder, Fluor (FLR). It exploited the parabolic rise in the SMR share price to liquidate a massive portion of its stake and use that capital to fund FLR share repurchases.
Fluor inadvertently triggered a supply-and-demand imbalance that flooded the market with shares. Analysts expect the remainder of Fluor’s position to be monetized throughout 2026, keeping a lid on any immediate attempts at a sustained rally.
Despite the carnage, there is a burgeoning debate regarding the stock’s intrinsic value. Some quantitative models suggest that at current levels near $20, SMR is fundamentally undervalued compared to its long-term cash flow potential, especially given the global urgency for carbon-free baseload power. However, institutional analysts at Citi and Goldman Sachs argue that "intrinsic value" is an abstract concept until NuScale proves itself commercially. Until a concrete order book is established, the stock is likely to remain a battleground between technical traders playing the bounce and fundamentalists waiting for proof of revenue.
Firms like Canaccord Genuity remain bullish outliers, clinging to the long-term potential of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to power massive AI data centers, the broader consensus has shifted toward a cautious "Hold." Heavyweights like BofA and RBC Capital have slashed price targets, signaling that the previous parabolic price rise was untethered from the company's current stage of commercial maturity. In their view, the market is finally distinguishing between nuclear enthusiasm and the rigorous timeline required for actual deployment.
The market has moved into a "show me" phase where speculative hype no longer suffices. While the sharp correction has undoubtedly de-risked the entry point for long-term believers, most analysts are content to wait on the sidelines. They are looking for stability in the share price and clear guidance in the upcoming February earnings call to confirm that the bottom is truly in, rather than just a pause in a larger valuation reset.
Thanks for the write up. It brings another option for long term investment. If u had to choose the top stocks in each of the categories above. What would you choose. Obv LEU and BWX u r excited abt. And others?
To be honest, I haven't reached any conclusions yet. I am still exploring this area of investment. I was hoping to spark a discussion among readers which may help inform decisions.
I know. There are more things to it, that I like. There was a merger (last year) between AMTM and a spun-off division of Jacobs solutions. The company offers complex solutions in a wide range of applikations (space projects, defense, cybersecurity, nuclear,...)The company startet with a relative high debt but with a huge backlog (over 3x annual revenue), impressive FCF- generation and a clear path to reduce leverage under 3xEBITDA and a vision to return capital to shareholders. The company is run by industry veterans with, in my view modest compensation and insider purchases last year. I have bought this stock last year at aproximatelly 22 USD (10% of portfolio).
Why have I bught it:
1, good visibility of future revenue
2, capital light business with stable FCF generation
3, debt to equity transfer, deleveraging with interest expense reduction and further improving FCF-yield
4, company doesn't need much capital to operate
5, improving of margins most likely
6, huge intelectual property
7, undiserved discount versus peers
8, one business unit was sold last year for 35xEBITDA (of that unit)
9, 80% of revenue should be inflation adjusted
10, defensive position with good upside
11, mid-cap company
12, with improving credit-rating it could be interesting for pension funds etc.
13, I search for companies with huge intelectuall property and little requirements of tangible asset
14, management introduced a clear path (at least for me ease to follow) and it seems they delivered
Antonius, thank you for your comment. I have removed references to Fluor as they add little or nothing to the narrative and are clearly contentious.
You seem to have an interest investing in the nuclear sector. Where are you investing your money?
I am trying to encourage others to share their ideas and to spark debate among readers.
There are many names I haven't covered. Perhaps I've missed an interesting one.
Perhaps you prefer ETFs? I know that URA has the broadest exposure with 25-35% in the SMR companies. URNM contains uranium producers including Cameco. Then there is URNJ which are the junior uranium producers with market caps under $5m.
Hallo James. I don't know, if it is interesting for you, but I really like Amentum. They are a US- goverment contractor (80% US, 20% allies) an provide "full service" (from design to decommisioning) engineering solutions for nuclear infrastructure (in general engineering solutions for different applications). 95% of US nuclear solutions are provided by AMTM. I think they offer a good risk/reward opportunity. That is how I play the nuclear energy...
AMTM is a new name to me. Its scope looks to be far broader than nuclear. It operates through two segments, Digital Solutions and Global Engineering Solutions. The company offers digital and data-driven solutions, including intelligence analytics, space system development, cybersecurity, and IT to the federal government and commercial clients. It also provides large-scale environmental remediation, nuclear power solutions, platform engineering, sustainment, and supply chain management for the U.S. government and allied nations.
So, although it offers nuclear exposure, that's only a small part of what it does. It is far from a pure play nuclear investment. I also note that it is relatively new, having been incorporated in 2023. The IPO occured in Sept 2024.
What is it about this company that appeals to you?
What is its history? Who are the people leading it?
Culper Research, the short seller, called NexGen Energy, "an insider enrichment scheme with substantial downside", the latter part based on an allegation that its Rook I uranium deposit’s are overstated by 43% to 62%.
It states, “Named executives have extracted over $140 million CAD in the past decade, with $78.5 million to CEO Curyer alone. We estimate total remuneration to NexGen’s board has been over $66 million over the same period. The company currently holds 10 board members. NexGen lists 8 of 10 directors as independent, but multiple directors hold overlapping decades-long ties to management via NxGold, Mega Uranium, Tigers Realm, and Queen’s Road Capital. We estimate insiders and their affiliates have sold $275 million in stock in the past ~3 years alone. NexGen has generated zero revenue in its entire public history, but does sponsor at least five professional sports teams, including Aston Martin’s Formula One team."
For the full report, see https://culperresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Culper_NXE_2-6-2026.pdf
What are thoughts on Constellation Energy (CEG)? Aren't they largest operator for nuclear power plant?
I have not specifically looked at Constellation Energy. They have struck a deal with Microsoft to resurrect the Three Mile Island nuclear facility. That is a double edged sword. It's great to have a stake source of revenue, but it's also incredibly high customer concentration risk.
I would love to hear your views on CEG if you have researched them from an investment perspective.
If you want to drive deeper into uranium as an investment, I recommend reading: https://open.substack.com/pub/crackthemarket/p/uranium-entering-a-nuclear-powered?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1owuoe
Thanks I'm looking at Space-Tech companies with both exposure to National defense and orbital datacenters regarding solar arrays in space. I'm not so bullish on Nuclear or SMRs more so the Neo Clouds that have invested in renewable cheap energy.
There’s been some talk about whether hosting data centres in space could help solve the growing challenges on Earth. There are benefits in respect of power and heat issues, but in reality it introduces far bigger problems than it solves. Space-based data centres would be vastly more expensive to finance than terrestrial ones, and the complexity and cost of ongoing servicing and maintenance shouldn’t be underestimated. On top of that, you still have to deal with the practical challenge of transmitting enormous volumes of data to and from orbit.
It’s an idea that gets talked up and Elon Musk has waxed lyrical about concepts like this, but he also has a track record of over-promising and under-delivering.
Bringing the discussion back down to Earth, regardless of your own political views, if governments and industries are serious about hitting net-zero carbon targets by 2050, nuclear power, and in particular small modular reactors (SMRs), looks like one of the most credible paths forward. Many heavy industries (chemicals, steel, etc) consume such vast amounts of energy that there is no realistic way to materially reduce their carbon footprint without a major shift in how that power is generated. For a large portion of these sectors, SMRs could offer a scalable, reliable, low-carbon baseload solution.
Hydrogen is often cited as the main alternative, but it comes with its own significant technical, economic and infrastructure challenges. In that context, nuclear increasingly looks like the more practical and dependable option for deep decarbonisation, especially for energy-intensive applications like data centres and heavy industry.
Just my thoughts for what they’re worth. I hope it helps.
I really enjoyed your article. I think you are spot on in regards to nuclear energy. It is by far the best and most efficient form of baseload power. I have and will continue to invest in the nuclear stack as your article warrants. However, I believe in the short term, nat gas is going to be the winner because it is superior form of energy than renewables in term of being both a baseload and dispatchable energy source. I also am not convince that as we get to a certain point of how much of our grid power comes from renewables that the grid will remain stable. The fact that renewables are intermittent and lack inertia, makes them an inferior source of energy. Will batteries help this problem, of course, but this is still limited. What are your thoughts to this concern?
The instability and weaknesses in grid infrastructure are valid. They add to the SMR investment thesis which is off grid, on location.
Batteries are inefficient. Power is lost when it is transferred to and from a battery, which is far from ideal. Batteries also become more inefficient with age. Then you have huge issues in relation to the rare earth minerals needed to produce new batteries, and the environmental issue of how best to dispose of them at end of life. For me a battery is like putting a band-aid plaster over a gaping wound. Better than nothing, but far from the best option.
The meteoric rise of NuScale Power (SMR) seems to have hit a significant technical and psychological wall, transitioning the narrative from AI-fueled euphoria to a reality check. The primary catalyst for this shift was the strategic exit of its largest shareholder, Fluor (FLR). It exploited the parabolic rise in the SMR share price to liquidate a massive portion of its stake and use that capital to fund FLR share repurchases.
Fluor inadvertently triggered a supply-and-demand imbalance that flooded the market with shares. Analysts expect the remainder of Fluor’s position to be monetized throughout 2026, keeping a lid on any immediate attempts at a sustained rally.
Despite the carnage, there is a burgeoning debate regarding the stock’s intrinsic value. Some quantitative models suggest that at current levels near $20, SMR is fundamentally undervalued compared to its long-term cash flow potential, especially given the global urgency for carbon-free baseload power. However, institutional analysts at Citi and Goldman Sachs argue that "intrinsic value" is an abstract concept until NuScale proves itself commercially. Until a concrete order book is established, the stock is likely to remain a battleground between technical traders playing the bounce and fundamentalists waiting for proof of revenue.
Firms like Canaccord Genuity remain bullish outliers, clinging to the long-term potential of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to power massive AI data centers, the broader consensus has shifted toward a cautious "Hold." Heavyweights like BofA and RBC Capital have slashed price targets, signaling that the previous parabolic price rise was untethered from the company's current stage of commercial maturity. In their view, the market is finally distinguishing between nuclear enthusiasm and the rigorous timeline required for actual deployment.
The market has moved into a "show me" phase where speculative hype no longer suffices. While the sharp correction has undoubtedly de-risked the entry point for long-term believers, most analysts are content to wait on the sidelines. They are looking for stability in the share price and clear guidance in the upcoming February earnings call to confirm that the bottom is truly in, rather than just a pause in a larger valuation reset.
Thanks for the write up. It brings another option for long term investment. If u had to choose the top stocks in each of the categories above. What would you choose. Obv LEU and BWX u r excited abt. And others?
To be honest, I haven't reached any conclusions yet. I am still exploring this area of investment. I was hoping to spark a discussion among readers which may help inform decisions.
Excuse my gramatical errors, please...
I know. There are more things to it, that I like. There was a merger (last year) between AMTM and a spun-off division of Jacobs solutions. The company offers complex solutions in a wide range of applikations (space projects, defense, cybersecurity, nuclear,...)The company startet with a relative high debt but with a huge backlog (over 3x annual revenue), impressive FCF- generation and a clear path to reduce leverage under 3xEBITDA and a vision to return capital to shareholders. The company is run by industry veterans with, in my view modest compensation and insider purchases last year. I have bought this stock last year at aproximatelly 22 USD (10% of portfolio).
Why have I bught it:
1, good visibility of future revenue
2, capital light business with stable FCF generation
3, debt to equity transfer, deleveraging with interest expense reduction and further improving FCF-yield
4, company doesn't need much capital to operate
5, improving of margins most likely
6, huge intelectual property
7, undiserved discount versus peers
8, one business unit was sold last year for 35xEBITDA (of that unit)
9, 80% of revenue should be inflation adjusted
10, defensive position with good upside
11, mid-cap company
12, with improving credit-rating it could be interesting for pension funds etc.
13, I search for companies with huge intelectuall property and little requirements of tangible asset
14, management introduced a clear path (at least for me ease to follow) and it seems they delivered
I will be gratefull for sugestions and comments.
I
I understand it is an introduction but i strongly disagree with your recommending smr because flúor is involved
But you do not mention that flúor is significantly divesting its shares in smr in october and november 2025.
Not texas but alberta would be for me the place to go for datacentra.
Cooling much easier and sufficient energy availability.
Antonius, thank you for your comment. I have removed references to Fluor as they add little or nothing to the narrative and are clearly contentious.
You seem to have an interest investing in the nuclear sector. Where are you investing your money?
I am trying to encourage others to share their ideas and to spark debate among readers.
There are many names I haven't covered. Perhaps I've missed an interesting one.
Perhaps you prefer ETFs? I know that URA has the broadest exposure with 25-35% in the SMR companies. URNM contains uranium producers including Cameco. Then there is URNJ which are the junior uranium producers with market caps under $5m.
I have significantly reduced with nice profits my uranium portfolio build over the last 3 years.
Currently only position in Sprott Physical Uranium trust and speculative first tranches in Denison and Aura Energy
Basically because of valuation metrics in 2 and 3
Although i m reviewing sylex listed in australia.
On another topic i was very impressed by your reviews on topicus and on fairfax india and took positions in both
So you are focused on tier 1 companies (physical uranium supply)
Out of curiousity, why have you decided not to invest in other parts of the nuclear stack?
Hallo James. I don't know, if it is interesting for you, but I really like Amentum. They are a US- goverment contractor (80% US, 20% allies) an provide "full service" (from design to decommisioning) engineering solutions for nuclear infrastructure (in general engineering solutions for different applications). 95% of US nuclear solutions are provided by AMTM. I think they offer a good risk/reward opportunity. That is how I play the nuclear energy...
Aurel, thank you for the suggestion.
AMTM is a new name to me. Its scope looks to be far broader than nuclear. It operates through two segments, Digital Solutions and Global Engineering Solutions. The company offers digital and data-driven solutions, including intelligence analytics, space system development, cybersecurity, and IT to the federal government and commercial clients. It also provides large-scale environmental remediation, nuclear power solutions, platform engineering, sustainment, and supply chain management for the U.S. government and allied nations.
So, although it offers nuclear exposure, that's only a small part of what it does. It is far from a pure play nuclear investment. I also note that it is relatively new, having been incorporated in 2023. The IPO occured in Sept 2024.
What is it about this company that appeals to you?
What is its history? Who are the people leading it?