We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nucleus Financial Group Plc | LSE:NUC | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BG226J60 | ORD 0.1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 191.50 | 0.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 191.50 | GBX |
Nucleus Financial (NUC) Share Charts1 Year Nucleus Financial Chart |
|
1 Month Nucleus Financial Chart |
Intraday Nucleus Financial Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/2/2021 | 12:21 | Nucleus Financial Group PLC | 15 |
| 08/3/2006 | 09:07 | Nuclear Power...The only option? | 11 |
| 18/6/2002 | 12:12 | Al Queda tossers at it again | 37 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 10/2/2021 11:58 by energeticbacker Investor's Champion update:Private-equity backed James Hay is acquiring adviser wrap platform Nucleus Financial Group for £144m. The offer of 188p per share values Nucleus at c.25x 2020 earnings, but is only marginally above the 183p listing price in July 2018. |
Posted at 08/12/2020 21:23 by thewheeliedealer Hi all,My mate Peter @Conkers3 and myself did a ‘Twin Petes Investing’ Podcast a few days ago and part of our discussion includes NUC which C3 has been looking at. We also chatted about loads of other Stocks and Ideas for research. We discussed the outlook for Markets and the most likely roadmap for the next couple of months, and as usual a fair bit of educational stuff with regards to Investing. Anyway, if you use Apple, Audioboom, Overcast or Spotify you can find it under the 'Conkers Corner' Channel (you want Podcast TPI 37) and you can find it on Soundcloud at the link below. It is also now on Youtube. I hope you enjoy it and find it useful, we try to keep them light and they are totally unscripted. Cheers, WD @wheeliedealer |
Posted at 16/1/2019 16:51 by gsbmba99 I recently purchased a small holding here. It's not exactly cheap but the relative valuation doesn't seem unreasonable when considering HL, IHP and AJB. I'm intrigued by the potential of the scale effect when comparing NUC and IHP. IHP 2x the AuM but waaay more profitable per unit of AuM. Might suggest profits growing well in advance of revenue if they can continue to build AuM. Also, hoping partial reliance on Bravura (ASX listed) doesn't prove to be a major flaw in profitability in comparison to IHP who bought their technology supplier a few years ago. |
Posted at 24/1/2006 21:56 by una anyone know of any nuc stocks?? |
Posted at 04/12/2005 09:05 by maxk The nuclear debate -------------------- 'Who puts up the cash?' The case against by energy professor Gordon MacKerron Sunday December 4, 2005 The Observer The headline arguments for building a new generation of nuclear power stations are familiar. The main lines are that nuclear is carbon-free in operation and that it might improve security of supply. The security argument is weak. A decision to proceed might be made in 2007, followed by a commercial choice of reactor and supplier, a safety licensing process, a public inquiry and a period for construction and commissioning. If all these were to run smoothly, the first power from a new reactor might be produced around 2018 - or more likely around 2020. A series of reactors through the 2020s might significantly improve security of supply, but so might other measures that might be at least as cost-effective. The climate change argument is, in principle, much more persuasive. Over a time horizon to 2030 and beyond, nuclear could make a significant dent in UK carbon emissions. But an important question is how nuclear power might get financed and built, given that no direct government money will be involved. Nuclear is a large-scale technology, requiring large unit sizes and substantial numbers of reactors if costs are to be at their lowest. This is a serious inflexibility. Nuclear power is an extreme case of 'lumpy' investment. The nuclear industry argues that it is worth taking the nuclear road only if there is a commitment to eight or 10 reactors. These would generate about 10,000 MW, equivalent to about 20 per cent of peak electricity demand. This represents some £15 billion or more. This would affect investment in conventional gas-powered generation, which competes directly with nuclear. If markets expected a major programme of nuclear investment, they would be unlikely to commit to any further gas-based investment. The worst-case scenario following a commitment to nuclear new-build would be a sterilisation of non-nuclear investment while the nuclear programme itself stalled. Such a scenario is far from a remote chance - the last time a UK government committed to 10 nuclear stations (Margaret Thatcher's in 1979) only one station was built, Sizewell, and then only after 15 years. If that were to happen again, security of supply would substantially worsen in the 2010s. While the inflexibility is problematic, it may not be fatal. Capital markets can raise billions if the relation between risk and reward is good enough. The risks attaching to nuclear investment are several. There are three types, corresponding to the nuclear life-cycle - construction risk, electricity market risk and decommissioning and waste risk - plus a more general and pervasive political/regulatory risk. In the construction process, risks are substantial. First, nuclear plants are large and capital-intensive, at something between £1bn and £2bn a throw. Second, the only designs seriously competing for the UK market are the Westinghouse AP1000, which has yet to be built anywhere in the world, and the French EPR design, the first unit of which has just started construction in Finland. It is not hard to imagine how financiers will react to the idea that they should stump up for eight or 10 reactors of a kind that no one has yet come near to completing. They will want to lay off this risk to the consortium offering to build the plant or plants. These consortiums may try to absorb the risk by offering a fixed-price or 'turnkey' contract. Something like this is happening in Finland, but such contracts will inevitably contain force majeure clauses, especially in the event of political and regulatory risk becoming manifest. And a turnkey contract may well turn into a 'cost-plus' contract on later plants. The market risks are also big. In the present electricity market no one can tell the price of electricity more than three years into the future and therefore buyers will not sign long-term contracts to purchase power. But in a capital-intensive project such as a nuclear plant, investors need to know their minimum income stream at least 10 to 15 years after power flows - some 20 or 25 years from now. This could be done only by guaranteeing a minimum nuclear price for such a period. This could be achieved by setting a 'Nuclear Obligation' at a minimum price, but at the cost of dismantling the painfully constructed electricity wholesale market and inviting State Aids (subsidy) cases to be considered by the European Commission. These risks could be overcome, and rewards guaranteed, but at potentially high cost to consumers, not only from excess nuclear costs but also from a major weakening of competitive forces in the electricity market as a whole. In the face of such risks, the cost of capital for nuclear projects will be higher than for conventional projects. The premium over a low-risk rate cannot be determined in the absence of detailed project plans but an inflation-adjusted cost of 10 per cent is likely on early projects. For a capital-intensive project such a relatively high cost of capital is a serious handicap. None of this means that a new nuclear programme could not proceed. But the benefits are delayed and the inflexibility pronounced. The risk for the nuclear industry is that if it argues for 10,000 MW or nothing, it may get nothing. If nuclear is to have the chance to make a serious long-term contribution to climate change, a more flexible and incremental case would seem better than current proposals. ยท Professor Gordon MacKerron chairs the Committee for Radioactive Waste Management |
Posted at 10/6/2002 18:51 by paddyfool I have to laugh!! a dirty bomb which would be hugely effective made out of radioactive waste from hospitals and industrila sites! What utter bol@@ks. This is a carefully orchestrated story which undoubtedly has some truth in it to cover for the howling f@@k up the security services committed prior to 9/11. Note there is nothing about him having the materials or carrying a smoking gun. I am sorry but I am hugely sceptical about this. This reminds me of the weather forecasts after the first UK hurricane in the 80s thereafter every shower had the potential to rip up the country side. Why? Because none of the Weather forecasters wanted to be remembered the way Michael fish is to this day! I do believe though that what remains of the organization which pulled off 9/11 is intent on doing it again only this time there is nowhere on the planet where they can plan and machinate with such freedom as before and every government knows that there will be a heavy price to pay if they support it. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
