Connect with us

Finance

Banks Unwilling To Finance $5 Trillion Global Nuclear Development | OilPrice.com

Published

on

Banks Unwilling To Finance  Trillion Global Nuclear Development | OilPrice.com

After decades of being treated as the black sheep of the energy universe, nuclear energy is enjoying a renaissance in the U.S. and many Western countries thanks to the global energy crisis. Back in December, at the COP28 summit, 22 countries including the US, Canada, the UK, and France pledged to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050 (from 2020 levels). Last month, 34 nations, including the United States, China, France, Britain, and Saudi Arabia, committed “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy by taking measures such as enabling conditions to support and competitively finance the lifetime extension of existing nuclear reactors, the construction of new nuclear power plants and the early deployment of advanced reactors.” 

The world is begrudgingly beginning to accept that technological bottlenecks limit solar and wind energy as large-scale substitutes for fossil fuel energy. Further, we are unable to develop clean energy resources fast enough to meet the world’s climate goals while the war in Ukraine has laid bare Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.

But nuclear’s revival might be dead in the water with lenders balking at financing what they consider a high-risk sector. Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency convened the first ever nuclear summit in Brussels. Unfortunately, bankers appeared unwilling to finance the $5 trillion the IAEA estimates the global nuclear industry needs for development until 2050.

If the bankers are uniformly pessimistic, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy,” former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said after listening to a panel of international lenders. Related: Chevron-Hess Tie Up Could Drag Until Next Year Courtesy of Exxon

Advertisement

The project risks, as we have seen in reality, seem to be very high,” said European Investment Bank Vice President Thomas Ostros, adding that countries need to focus more on renewables and energy efficiency. Ines Rocha, a director at the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, and Fernando Cubillos, a banker at the Development Bank of Latin America, concurred, saying their lending priorities lean toward renewables and transmission grids. “Nuclear comes last,” Cubillos said.

We need state involvement, I don’t see any other model. Probably we need quite heavy state involvement to make projects bankable,” Ostros said.

State Involvement

As Ostros has noted, at this juncture, the nuclear sector probably requires considerable government support if it’s to really take off. In the past, the U.S. government has been involved in nuclear energy mainly through safety and environmental regulations as well as R&D funding in enrichment of uranium projects like HALEU. However, lately, the federal government is becoming more heavily involved in the nuclear energy sector.

Over the past several years, billions of federal dollars have gone into the development and demonstration of next-generation small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced fuel cycle reactors. U.S. EXIM has been providing financing for overseas nuclear projects for more than a half-century. EXIM has issued Letters of Interest for up to $3 billion for nuclear exports to Poland and Romania. Established in 1934, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), operates as an independent agency of the U.S. Government under the authority of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945. Similarly, USTDA has committed funding for the export of nuclear power technologies to Poland and Romania, Ukraine and Indonesia. Much of the funding is for technical activities, and includes a significant focus on the potential export of small modular reactors.

Advertisement

Last month, the U.S. federal government agreed to provide a $1.5 billion loan to restart a nuclear power plant in southwestern Michigan, abandoning earlier plans to decommission it. The Michigan plant will become the first ever nuclear plant in the U.S. to be revived after abandonment. Privately-owned Holtec International acquired the 800-megawatt Palisades plant in 2022 with plans to dismantle it. But now the plant will be able to contribute to Michigan’s power grid if it’s able to pass inspections and testing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, known as the NRC.

Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer has welcomed the move. 

Nuclear power is our single largest source of carbon-free electricity, directly supporting 100,000 jobs across the country and hundreds of thousands more indirectly,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, a former Michigan governor, has said.

The repowering of Palisades will restore safe, around-the-clock generation to hundreds of thousands of households, businesses and manufacturers,” Kris Singh, Holtec president and chief executive, has declared.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, California regulators have given the greenlight for the Diablo Canyon plant to operate through 2030 instead of 2025 as the state transitions toward renewable power sources. Pacific Gas & Electric, the plant’s owner, says it has received assistance from the federal government to repay a state loan.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Advertisement

Finance

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Founded in 2013, Robinhood (HOOD +2.80%) changed the brokerage industry with its free trading model. Today, the broker’s product lineup has expanded well beyond stocks to include products like cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. With a focus on smaller investors, Robinhood is living up to its goal to “democratize finance for all.” But is becoming a full-service financial platform enough to make the stock a buy?

Robinhood is growing quickly

Although it was founded in 2013, Robinhood didn’t go public until 2021. In its first earnings release in the second quarter of that year, it had $102 billion in custody. In the first quarter of 2026, roughly five years later, that figure had grown to $307 billion, and it is now called total platform assets, given the broadening of the company’s business. The company has rapidly become a major player in the finance industry, building off its early success in attracting younger traders interested in stocks.

Image source: Getty Images.

There’s no question that management deserves a great deal of credit for what Robinhood has achieved. But that alone doesn’t make the stock worth buying. Notably, Robinhood is being afforded a premium valuation, with a price-to-earnings ratio of 45x, compared to P/Es of 39x for Interactive Brokers (IBKR +0.96%) and 18x for Charles Schwab (SCHW 2.97%). A growth investor may be able to justify Robinhood’s valuation, but a value investor likely wouldn’t be interested.

What’s going on with Robinhood’s customer base?

There’s another issue to consider here as well. With a focus on new investors, Robinhood may be taking on more risk than its long-established peers, such as Charles Schwab. This potential risk was highlighted in Robinhood’s solid first quarter 2026 results. Risk-taking is the big issue.

Advertisement

While Robinhood’s transaction-based revenue jumped 7% year-over-year in the quarter, that growth was largely driven by prediction markets, which boosted “other” revenue by 320%. Cryptocurrency-related revenue, however, fell by 47%. This is notable because it suggests that aggressive investors shifted to what is the current hot trading idea.

Robinhood Markets Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(2.80%) $2.95

Current Price

$108.15

The problem is that Robinhood has never lived through a deep market downturn, such as the dot-com crash or the bear market associated with the Great Recession. Until it has, it is hard to know what its customers will do when every market seems to be heading lower, and losses are piling up. In other words, what will its customers do when there’s no new hot investment idea to jump on? There is a very real possibility that fear drives less experienced investors to get out of the market and stay out. Risk-averse investors will likely want to wait for Robinhood to be stress-tested before buying it.

Robinhood is not a bad company, but it is still quite young

None of this is meant to suggest that Robinhood is a bad company. It has done incredible things in a very short period of time. But that short period of time is a problem because the vast majority of it has been good for the stock market and investing. Robinhood’s stock is expensive, and the company has yet to face a deep, prolonged market downturn. Only the most aggressive growth investors will likely be interested in it for now.

Charles Schwab is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Interactive Brokers Group. The Motley Fool recommends Charles Schwab and recommends the following options: long January 2027 $43.75 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, short January 2027 $46.25 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, and short June 2026 $97.50 calls on Charles Schwab. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Elon Musk made history again this month with the largest public offering of a company in the history of the known universe. Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX, began trading June 12 on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker symbol SPCX. In the first three days, the stock soared by 50%, blasting the rocketeer past Amazon into fifth place among America’s largest companies.

While the public liftoff was impressive for its size and the hype surrounding it, what truly set this transaction apart was how Musk used his leverage to succeed in changing the rules during the final countdown and advance his own interest at the expense of shareholders.

Space Exploration Technologies is a truly intriguing collection of assets with a history of big accomplishments and even bigger ambitions. At its core is Starlink, a profitable satellite internet and data transmission operation. In the offering document, Musk imagines a network of massive orbiting data centers, which is not entirely crazy and is likely to face less political opposition from nearby residents.

SpaceX also includes the familiar rocket launch enterprise and an artificial intelligence startup called xAI with its Grok AI assistant. While private investors and Starlink have provided operating cash flows to fund the space operations, SpaceX needs substantial additional funding to support its galactic expansion plans. That requires selling shares of this privately held company to the public in an initial public offering.

The process involves a syndicate of investment banks that facilitates the sale of shares held by the company’s founders or private investors at a specific price, the proceeds of which allow early investors to cash out and provide a large injection of capital. Once the shares are sold to public buyers, they change hands on a market exchange at a price determined by supply and demand.

Advertisement

The prospect of the largest initial offering ever ignited a frenzy of interest. It also allowed Elon Musk to leverage the buzz of a monster IPO to convince Wall Street to bend the rules.

To win the listing, the Nasdaq stock exchange agreed to substantial waivers of its own listing rules. While new companies must typically wait at least three months before they become eligible for inclusion in the popular Nasdaq 100 index, Nasdaq jettisoned this “seasoning” period and allowed SpaceX to enter the index after only 15 days. This tech-heavy index serves as the benchmark for over $1.4 trillion in fund assets that will now be required to sell other holdings to make room for SpaceX in their portfolios. Estimates range from $8 to $15 billion in forced purchases that will create artificial demand for the stock. It also means that many passive investors in retirement funds will end up owning the stock, like it or not.

Nasdaq also waived its own liquidity rules. Ordinarily, at least 10% of the company’s shares must be offered to the public, called the “float,” or percentage, of the total stock value that trades publicly. SpaceX floated only 4.3% of its stock, with private shareholders retaining 95.7%. Using some arithmetic legerdemain, Nasdaq created a “multiplier,” triple-counting the float for companies in the top 40 by total market value. Presumably for firms whose founders’ initials are E.M.

To its credit, S&P Global Inc. considered but ultimately refused to loosen its own standards for joining the S&P 500 index, concerned about the potential reputational damage. The S&P 500 is the benchmark for $20 trillion in assets and opted to retain its 12-month seasoning period as well as a four-quarter profitability hurdle. SpaceX may one day dock with the S&P 500, but the countdown has not started.

Aside from eliciting waivers and exceptions for index inclusion, SpaceX massively advantages its visionary but mercurial founder. In its surprisingly entertaining prospectus, the company boosted Musk’s control far beyond his ownership stake. The shares issued to the public are called Class A shares, and each carries one vote on matters of corporate governance. However, Musk’s stake resides in so-called Class B shares, each with 10 votes, giving Musk 84% voting control.

Advertisement

There are a few other little gems. The prospectus requires that any disputes between shareholders and the company must be settled privately through arbitration. Lawsuits, including the type of class action suits that tend to hold management’s feet to the fire, are expressly prohibited. And speaking of fire, Musk may only be fired by himself.

Some of these more restrictive provisions have been used before. For instance, in its initial offering, Google essentially pioneered the idea of multiple share classes that vested voting control with the founders. SpaceX propels contempt for shareholder rights into a higher orbit.

Separate from the structural disadvantage to public shareholders is the question of valuation. SpaceX lost nearly $5 billion in 2025 and another $4 billion just last quarter. The initial offering of loss-making companies is hardly new, especially in technologically emerging fields. SpaceX has reached the stratosphere.

With no profits to measure, a useful metric is the ratio of the total value of all the company’s stock divided by last year’s revenues, called the price to sales ratio. When the unprofitable Amazon went public in 1996, its total market value was three times its 1995 sales. Google’s 2004 offering priced at 15 times sales, Facebook at a hefty 28 times, and even Musk’s own Tesla launched at a multiple of 15 times sales. SpaceX cleared the tower at an otherworldly 95 times sales, soaring to 130 by the end of day two as the frenzy intensified. During the first full trading day, it comprised 75% of all stock purchases by individual investors. In the prospectus, Musk expatiates on his plan to colonize Mars. He’s halfway there.

There is no precedent for a public offering of this size, with such a long and speculative arc toward profitability and so few shareholder protections. SpaceX is a pure play wager on a precocious space cadet with interstellar aspirations astride a solid rocket booster. Enjoy the ride.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

Published

on

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

BURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) – Initial public offerings, better known as IPOs, may seem like big investment opportunities, but a financial adviser is warning they could be a risky addition to your portfolio.

Dan Cunningham of the investment management company One Day in July, said he recommends that people stay away when a company starts selling initial shares on the stock market.

Most recently, Elon Musk’s SpaceX became the biggest IPO ever, but Cunningham said people shouldn’t get caught up in the hoopla.

“They generate a lot of excitement, but when you look at long term results, IPOs have not been a good investment. So we really try to encourage people to stay away from the hype. You are really betting on the future and taking an enormous amount of risk by buying IPO shares in many cases,” Cunningham said.

According to Cunningham, the good news is that, over the long term, the market and most retirement funds that mirror it will balance out.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 WCAX. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending