A lot of green today, among other things, the uranium sector is also rising steeply again. Today there was news regarding nuclear power in Belgium, apparently the government is in intensive negotiations with the operator to nationalize the 7 units on 2 sites. It looks like the dismantling of the reactors has been stopped for the time being ☢️ Apparently everyone wants to avoid the situation of the German Leitkultur.

$CCO (-2,46 %)
$UEC (-3,3 %)
$YCA (-1,02 %)
$NXE (-2,21 %)
$KZAP
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g05jg87wko

Reading time: approx. 5-6 minutes

Many of my recent articles have focused on key figures that help to clearly classify business models, risks and valuations. Beta is part of this series - and at the same time the key figure plays a special role. It is available everywhere and can be looked up quickly, but only becomes truly meaningful in the context of an entire portfolio. This is because beta does not describe the company itself, but the behavior of a share in interaction with the market.

Mathematically, beta measures the relationship between share returns and market returns. The basis is the covariance of these returns - and this is always based on historical data. However, the interpretation is inevitably forward-looking because past patterns are used to derive how a stock will typically behave in relation to the market in the future.

Formally, the key figure is

Beta = covariance(stock return, market return) / variance(market return)

In practical terms, this means that when the market moves, how much does the share typically move with it? Values around 1 mean market-like movements, higher values show stronger fluctuations, lower values a calmer behavior.

The reason why beta is often misinterpreted is that it is not stable. It depends heavily on the time period, the market phase and the chosen index. A company can continue to perform solidly, but suddenly have a different beta due to changes in interest rates or the risk environment. Beta therefore measures behavior - not quality.

To make it clearer how beta works in a portfolio, it is worth taking a look at my portfolio. It combines robust quality stocks such as Visa, Alphabet and Honeywell, growth-oriented technology stocks such as ASML, Nu Holdings and Innodata, defensive infrastructure and water stocks such as Consolidated Water, Energiekontor and Energy Recovery, the global ETF on the MSCI ACWI and a uranium block as a cyclical idea with Cameco, NexGen, Denison Mines, Paladin Energy and Yellow Cake. Bitcoin complements the whole as an independent, significantly more volatile component.

This mix shows well why beta is useful for me on a day-to-day basis. Different stocks can be fundamentally strong and yet contribute very differently to the fluctuation profile of the portfolio. Some positions smooth out, others strengthen - regardless of whether the companies are well managed or highly profitable. It's about market behavior, not balance sheet quality.

For the beta analysis, I use conservative, market-standard 3-5 year values of major providers. Most betas are calculated on the basis of daily or monthly returns over precisely such periods - long enough to be statistically stable and short enough to realistically reflect current market phases. Where there is no official data, suitable sector values are used.

The betas used are as follows:

Large Caps

- $ASML (+4,22 %) : 1,25

- $GOOGL (+0,37 %) : 1,05

- $V (-1,21 %) : 0,95

- $HON (+0 %) : 1,00

Midcaps / Infrastructure

- $CWCO (-1,2 %) : 0,80

- $EKT (+3,19 %) : 0,75

- $ERII (-3,84 %) : 1,20

- $SOP (+0,43 %) : 1,10

Small Cap / High Beta

- $INOD (+37,42 %) : 1,80

Uranium segment (cyclical)

- $CCO (-2,46 %) : 1,40

- $NXE (-2,21 %) : 1,60

- $DML (-0,31 %) : 1,70

- $PDN (-2,46 %) : 1,50

- $YCA (-1,02 %) 1,30

ETF

- $ISAC (+0,42 %) : 1,00

Crypto

- $BTC (-0,02 %) : 2,50

The only thing that counts for the portfolio beta is how large each position is in relation to the portfolio.

This is how the portfolio beta is determined:

You look at how large each position is in the portfolio, multiply this proportion by the beta of the respective share and add up all the contributions. Each position therefore contributes to the overall beta in exactly the same proportion as its weighting.

If you put the weightings of my portfolio in this context, the result is as follows: the portfolio has a beta of around 1.33. This value fits the structure: a stable base, several growth-oriented building blocks and a deliberately used uranium block as well as Bitcoin as a stronger lever.

A beta at this level means a fundamentally more offensive portfolio.

• In upward phases, it develops more momentum than the market.
• It reacts faster and more strongly in corrections.
• The strongest drivers are Bitcoin, Innodata, NexGen, Denison Mines and Paladin Energy.
• Counterweights are Visa, Consolidated Water, Energiekontor and the MSCI ACWI ETF.

This shows that beta is no substitute for fundamental analysis, but it makes it clear how a portfolio is moving and why. It helps to calibrate expectations, classify fluctuations and manage the structure more consciously. A beta of 1.33 is not a judgment of quality - it is a description of movement. The only important thing is whether this dynamic fits your own investment strategy.

Finally, two questions for you:

Do you know the beta of your portfolio?

And does it play a role for you in your portfolio strategy - or not?

Reading time: approx. 6-7 minutes

A few weeks ago, I described the structural appreciation of the uranium market as part of the supercycle approach: Supply deficits, geopolitical upheavals and the political turnaround in favor of nuclear energy mark the beginning of a multi-year uptrend. Today, reality provides the next piece of evidence - and $CCO (-2,46 %) (Cameco) is at the center of it.

Together with Westinghouse Electric and Brookfield Asset Management, the Canadian company is participating in a new $BAM (-0,42 %) Brookfield Asset Management in a new 80 billion US dollar energy offensive by the US government. The aim is to massively expand nuclear power capacities in the United States. The initiative is more than just a political signal: it is seen as a turning point in industrial policy and is intended to cover the entire cycle of civilian nuclear energy - from uranium mining to fuel processing and reactor technology. Supported by state guarantees and tax incentives, it marks an attempt to reduce dependence on Russia and China in the global uranium market.

For Cameco, this represents a decisive step: the Group, previously one of the largest uranium producers in the world, is increasingly becoming a political and economic partner of the Western energy transition. The combination of technological expertise, access to first-class deposits and now also political backing gives the company a strategic role that goes beyond simply extracting raw materials.

For me, today's news underlines why uranium is currently one of the most exciting sectors for long-term investors. My own supercycle portfolio reflects this logic: a tiered exposure along the entire value chain - from producers to physical storage companies. Cameco forms the core, the foundation of the positioning. In addition, I rely on $YCA (-1,02 %) (Yellow Cake) as a direct lever on the uranium price, as the company physically stores real stocks and thus offers pure price exposure. $NXE (-2,21 %) (NexGen Energy) stands for the exploration growth portion: a developer that controls one of the most promising uranium deposits in the world with the Arrow project in Canada. $DML (-0,31 %) (Denison Mines) contributes technological diversification - the focus is on the in-situ recovery method, which is intended to make uranium mining more efficient and environmentally friendly. Finally $PDN (-2,46 %) (Paladin Energy) complements the geographic diversification with a strong production focus in Namibia - a leverage to the supply shortage outside North America.

Together, these five stocks form a balanced cluster of substance and dynamism. Cameco and Yellow Cake stand for stability, NexGen, Denison and Paladin for speculative momentum in the early cycle. It is precisely this mix that is characteristic of phases in which structural scarcity coincides with political tailwinds.

Today's US initiative fits into a bigger picture. Nuclear energy is making a comeback worldwide: France is extending operating times and planning new EPR plants, Japan is reactivating reactors, China is continuously expanding its network, while countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Finland are initiating their own projects for the first time. After decades of underinvestment, there is a massive surge in demand - and supply is barely growing. Cameco controls some of the most productive mines in the world and is benefiting directly from the structural deficit.

The current cycle is following a familiar pattern: first prices stabilize after a long bear market, then political programs and investment waves meet tight capacity. We are right in the middle of this acceleration phase. The momentum is not the result of short-term speculation, but of real bottlenecks and industrial policy realignment.

Of course, the environment is not without risks. After the strong performance of recent quarters, temporary consolidations are possible, and uranium prices are also sensitive to geopolitical shifts. Regulatory uncertainties regarding new projects could also delay schedules. But the overarching story remains intact: Nuclear power is back - and with it those companies that supply the fuel.

Cameco is at the forefront of a growing ecosystem that stretches from Canada to Australia and Namibia. Participation in the US's 80 billion offensive shows that uranium is no longer a marginal issue, but is seen as a security policy factor. Investing in this super cycle at an early stage means investing not only in energy, but also in geopolitical stability.

From time to time, there are movements on the markets that last longer than a normal upswing. This is known as a super cycle - a phase in which certain commodities or technologies are in demand for many years and their prices rise significantly. This is usually due to fundamental changes in the economy and society.

A well-known example is China in the 2000s. Rapid construction activity and industrialization led to raw materials such as iron ore or coal becoming increasingly expensive over the course of a decade. In this context, there is often talk of the "commodity supercycle", which was driven by the massive demand of Chinese construction and industrial policy. In recent years, this is how I perceive the technology sector in particular: cloud services, automation and artificial intelligence have caused demand for semiconductors to explode.

I currently have the impression that new super cycles could be on the horizon again. In the uranium sector in particular, it is noticeable that many countries are bringing nuclear energy more into play. This is already reflected in my own portfolio. I differentiate between core stocks and leverage stocks. The core stocks are my basic investments: $CCO (-2,46 %) (Cameco) and $YCA (-1,02 %) (Yellow Cake). Both are established, comparatively stable and form the foundation on which my uranium strategy rests. Leveraged stocks, on the other hand, are more speculative and react much more strongly to market movements. Here I am betting on planned positions in $NXE (-2,21 %) (NexGen Energy), $DML (-0,31 %) (Denison Mines) and $PDN (-2,46 %) (Paladin Energy). I have currently set orders for these stocks, which will only be executed when the risk/reward ratio is right. This allows me to build up the positions in a controlled manner and keep the risk within limits.

Another example of a possible super cycle is the defense industry. Prices there have already risen sharply in recent years, driven by geopolitical tensions and rising defense spending. I personally missed this trend - but this is precisely the lesson: markets move in waves and anyone who misses a cycle should not look back, but forward. Because there are always new opportunities if you recognize the structural changes early on.

In addition to uranium, copper could also play a role again. The major producers in particular $FCX (+0,94 %) (Freeport-McMoRan) and $SCCO (+2,37 %) (Southern Copper) are particularly interesting if the global grid expansion and electrification actually trigger a new boom in demand.

I am interested: What's your take on this? Is a new super cycle emerging here, especially in the uranium sector - or is this more of a short wave? Which stocks do you think are exciting and what strategies are you pursuing yourself?

Hi there.

I would like to invest a little in the future of nuclear energy and have come across this company here. The P/E ratio looks more than fair. Does anyone have more experience in the sector and any other attractive alternatives? 🤔

$YCA (-1,02 %)

What are your dividend favorites?

I would like to divest myself of a few shares and add to existing dividend stocks.

Which positions would you add to ?

I will sell: $ANET
$YCA (-1,02 %)
$KLAC (+5,63 %)
$CDNS (+1,24 %)
$SNPS (+1,86 %)
$QCOM (+8,66 %)
$MRAM (+28,07 %)
$SYNA (+14,82 %)

I have approx. 1365€ available afterwards.

Small position in Spekulation's portfolio sold.

Lithium is interesting but there is still too much "dirt" in the market.

$SLI (-0,56 %) remains on the watch, as I still find the company interesting, especially because of the cooperation with $LXS (+3,63 %)

The money may flow into a new position in $YCA (-1,02 %)

A few shares of $YCA (-1,02 %) Yellow Cake snapped up on the first April shopping spree 😎🤞🏼

Very exciting title. Maybe someone would like to do an analysis on it....

I also added to these stocks at the end of March:

$MUX (-0,76 %) (my little german favorite 🇩🇪 💞)

$IBM (-1,16 %)

$NDA (-1,9 %)

$HIK (+1,16 %)

Today I'm going to take a look at uranium stocks from my perspective as a radiation protection engineer:

From today's perspective, the demand for uranium will increase, not decrease, by 2027. Production is currently not keeping pace and demand is very high. I therefore see uranium share prices continuing to rise until 2027.

Which ones are currently popular?

In addition to the strong Cameco $CCO (-2,46 %) and Nexgen Energy $NXG there is also Kazatomprom $KZAP . All three have had a very good rally to date and are expected to constantly exceed their all-time high until 2027.

From today's perspective, I think one share is still undervalued alongside Kazatomprom: $YCA (-1,02 %) Yellow Cake, these do not produce uranium directly but rather act as holders of uranium and uranium trading.

Cameco: P/E 102, growth 96%, 0.2% div

Nexgen: P/E 45, growth 65%, 0% div

Kazatomprom: P/E 15, 1Y: 46%,4%Div

Yellow Cake: P/E 4, 1Y growth 85%, 0% div

I personally have Cameco in my savings plan, but I think this company and Nexgen are overvalued. I also have shares in Kazatomprom and Yellow Cake.

What does the future look like? Even after 2027, things will not get less for producers. From today's perspective, over 120 new pressurized water reactors of the EPR type will be built by 2035. However, the price will increasingly fall again. Anyone who thinks that Germany is going to stop, I'm afraid I have to put a spanner in the works. Although no conventional reactors are being built and we are in the process of dismantling them, dual-fluid reactors or small SMR-type reactors are. These have the possibility of reusing the nuclear waste. Companies and cooperation with the following companies are required for the construction:

Mitsubishi Heavy $7011 (-1,39 %) ( power plant construction)

Hitachi $HIA (power plant construction)

RWE $RWE (+1,71 %) (invested in Poland and the Netherlands via Urenco)

Brookfield $BN (+1,08 %) (main shareholder Westinghouse)

Engie Electrabel $ENGI (-0,39 %) (ECS)

Mutares SE $MUX (-0,76 %) (dismantling of nuclear power plants)

General Electric $GEC (reactor construction (among others)

Others are unfortunately only limited liability companies.

Conventional nuclear waste is also disposed of with other reactor types. However, the process will continue to develop until around 2050.

If you have any further questions, please write to me.

To take up the topic again briefly: Here is an example of a really good and cleanly presented annual report from $YCA (-1,02 %)

I particularly like the luxury of being able to calculate the NAV directly for the shareholder. So you can see directly whether the share is currently too expensive or cheap, similar to BDC's.

A brief explanation of the NAV:

Price < NAV = Discount, also günstig

Kurs > NAV = Premium, Expensive.

In the example here, this results in a discount of ~11% at the current price of £5.80 to a NAV of £6.58

And here is the short note: this is not a free-money glitch, just a valuation metric.