Nucleus Financial Share Discussion Threads

[pitbear] 10/2/2021 12:21

has there been any guidance on timeline? i saw somewhere that James Hay would present the offer to shareholders on 5th March..? guess it could take a while to get the cash

[energeticbacker] 10/2/2021 11:58

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.

[pitbear] 10/12/2020 11:59

Looks as though it’s settled at this level - I imagine the bids are around here.

[thewheeliedealer] 08/12/2020 21:23

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

[ny boy] 02/12/2020 17:13

Question is, where do the bids come in at?

[easwarareddy] 02/12/2020 15:33

Have a look at eua

[ssahoy18] 25/10/2019 08:55

huge valuation differential between nucleus and the big boys... but the difference is performance is huge too

want to like nucleus but growth is all being driven by the market. low customer growth and low adviser growth. the reason the others trade at a big multiple is because they have consistent organic inflows not driven by the market

at this valuation nucleus is sort of in no-mans land, nowhere near as expensive as the big ones, but not obviously cheap unless they can perk up their growth

[gsbmba99] 16/1/2019 16:51

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.

[bobsa] 25/9/2018 23:43

Not the best starts or results following IPO. I'm persisting though and looking to increase my exposure as I know Nucleus well and am confident that they have a bright future.

[ltinvestor] 26/7/2018 11:20

Picked up 25k to lock away!

[martywidget] 26/7/2018 10:17

!FOLLOWFEED

[asparks] 08/3/2006 09:07

Forget Nuclear - the future is in renewables/alternatives and energy efficiency.
The recent 'Nuclear Is Not The Answer' advisory report to the UK government
( ) should add momentum to the growing investment opportunities in renewables etc. See the following companies and funds:
LSE:ALK,LSE:BFC,LSE:CPO,LSE:CRA,LSE:CWR,LSE:DOO,LSE:GTL,LSE:JGG,
LSE:MNE,LSE:REH,LSE:ROM,LSE:RVA,LSE:TER,LSE:TRE,LSE:UCM,

And the following threads:

[Abuse team] 16/2/2006 13:12

Post removed by ADVFN

[duden1] 24/1/2006 22:35

As a holder of British Energy shares it may sound strange that I am uneasy about running old stations into the ground, but at least BGY do not have to run the old magnox plant!
I just hope the new designs are the "pebble bed" type that the Chinese seem to be developing since they are so much safer. No rods to get stuck and no meltdown possible. Also much simpler and cheaper and therefore much quicker to build.
Less time "settling in" of plant and less down time due to breakdowns and overhauls. Not sure about eventual decommissioning costs though but should be easier and cheaper too.
ACCIDENTS:
I am still concerned about the impact of a major event at one of the existing UK stations, the effect of severe earthquakes - very rare but have happened over the centuries even in the UK! Also aircraft impact, though we were reassured on TV the other day that all reactors are proof against this!
ISURANCE:
Have a look at your home insurance policy by the way and the section which absolves the company against covering any loss due to radioactivity. Would the government indemnify in the case of a large swathe of fall-out I wonder.

[una] 24/1/2006 21:56

anyone know of any nuc stocks??

[sbs] 05/12/2005 14:09

Renewable alternatives:

Wind - useful for base load, ie top up from other sources when the wind doesn't blow enough. It's windier in the winter, when we need the more energy. Incidentally, offshore wind returns the energy invested in construction in 7 months.

Biomass - instead of recycling newspapers, burn them. Wood grown for burning is ideal. This could fill in any gaps when all other supplies are slow.

Solar - expensive if you use PVs for electricity, but putting simple tubes in a black roof to heat water saves loads of domestic energy, and is very cheap.

Waves - hard to get working because the sea is corrosive, but these issues will be solved over time.

Tidal - for example, the Severn barrage would provide around 3% of UK electricity on its own.

Hydroelectric - more useful in places with mountains, but pretty steady supply. Brazil gets 25% of its electricity from one hydro electric facility.

Insulation - money spent on insulation saves more electricity than you could generate with the same money.

[m.t.glass] 05/12/2005 13:01

Every excuse in the book has been made for stalling the progress towards the (utimately inevitable and sensible) use of renewable energy sources. Keeping trials small.. repeating the same investigations every decade (just to appear holy, whilst deferring actual progress). Kicking renewables into the long grass has been very successful, as far as those who favour nuclear are concerned. Brian Wilson in particular has always displayed glee at the possibility of bouncing us into greater reliance on nuclear energy by depressing investment in renewables to a purely token level so he can always name the most distant possible date for progress there.

Despite its love of nuclear, the government is already acknowleging that the economical case for nuclear is lost, and is doing its very best at the moment to condition people into accepting that taxpayers should subsidise nuclear regardless of what it costs. When some of the figures currently being kited are weighed up over the next 6 months or so, people are in for a shock. The numbers are such that we could instantly make around a fivefold increase in our expenditure on development of renewables and, even at this late stage, bring some of those onstream quicker than we could complete the construction of a nuclear power station.

Incidentally, scheduled and unscheduled downtime at existing nuclear power stations means (according to the energy minister's own figures) that the contribution from nuclear is sometimes at or around 18% for several weeks at a time, which is somewhat lower than the politically useful 'average' figure quoted.

[maxk] 05/12/2005 12:25

What are the alternatives?

Wind..........what happens if it dont blow?

Tidal.........expensive (so i'm told) to set up and maintain.

Gas...........we are running out of home produced, now importing...How reliable?

Geothermal....?

Coal..........Got lots, but no one wants to know...why?