“Small is beautiful”, proclaimed the classic 1973 book by British economist Ernst Schumacher, challenging the century’s mania for gigantic projects. He opposed nuclear power, among the largest industrial endeavours of his time, multibillion-dollar assemblages of concrete, steel, wires and uranium. But the emerging nuclear power renaissance, driven by data centres, combines the small and the large.

On last Wednesday, e-commerce and web services giant Amazon said it would be an anchor investor in a $500 million fund-raising by X-energy, a new developer of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Amazon also said it would support SMR projects in its home state, Washington, as well as in the data centre hotspot of Virginia.

Amazon and X-energy intend to have more than 5 gigawatts of SMRs operational by 2039. This is approximately equal to the 5.6 gigawatts of conventional large nuclear reactors at the UAE’s Barakah plant.

Last week, tech rival Google also ordered six to seven SMRs from Kairos Power, while last month, Oracle said it would use three SMRs to power a more than 1 gigawatt centre and meet “crazy” needs for power. Microsoft had announced it would buy electricity from the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, site of a 1979 accident, if its owner restarts it.

These are welcome steps forward for nuclear power. Outside a few countries such as China and the UAE, nuclear capacity has been going backwards for years, as ageing reactors were closed down and not replaced, new plants took decades to build and run heavily over-budget, and countries such as Germany phased-out operational sites.

The improvement in renewable energy such as wind and solar, sharp falls in costs for battery storage and, in the US, a glut of cheap shale gas, made nuclear power economically uncompetitive. Environmentalists, often adhering to 1970s-era orthodoxies and fears of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl in 1986, campaigned heavily against new nuclear investment, and overregulation and legal challenges drove up construction times and costs.

But three factors may create a more radiant future.

First, climate. At the Cop28 talks in Dubai last year, a group of more than 20 countries, including the UAE, US and UK, affirmed a goal of tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 as a source of reliable low-carbon electricity.

Second, energy security. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the cut-off of much of Europe’s gas made the continent, and other isolated energy markets such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, aware again of the value of power generation which is not affected by weather and whose fuel can be stockpiled for years. But Western countries and allies want to steer clear of Chinese or Russian reactors and fuel, so they need to rebuild decades of atrophied domestic capability.

Third, electricity demand is rising again in developed countries, after decades when it barely grew. Demand for electric heating, air-conditioning and battery cars is one component.

The explosive rise of data centres is another, driven by the artificial intelligence boom. Even if the overall electrical needs of data centres are not huge, they are very significant in specific areas, far-exceeding local capacity in areas such as Virginia. Meeting this need with renewables is difficult as the best solar and wind sites are distant and constructing new transmission cables across state borders is a regulatory thornbush.

But to answer these needs, new nuclear plants need to be much quicker and cheaper to build. The International Energy Agency estimates that nuclear electricity in China costs 6.5 US cents per kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than gas, and reasonably competitive with large-scale solar or wind power. China builds numerous plants in sequence and has managed to standardise them and train up its workforce.

But the cost in the US is 10.5 cents, and in Europe, 14 cents. New reactors are rarely built, face endless public and legal challenges, excessive and often capricious regulation, and lack of expertise from developers whose last serious construction programmes were in the 1970s or 1980s.

SMRs promise the needed improvement. A conventional nuclear reactor may typically be about 1,000-1,400 megawatts. SMR designs, by contrast, range from a few megawatts, designed for remote communities, isolated industries or military sites, or ships, to Rolls-Royce’s 470MW unit, really a medium-sized reactor. X-energy’s system features 80-megawatt reactors which can be bundled into a “four-pack”.

SMRs cover a wide range of designs, from variants of traditional models, to radical new concepts. They are often intended to be inherently safer than conventional reactors, not requiring external cooling, the problem that hit Japan’s Fukushima plant in 2011 when its backup diesel generators were swamped by a tsunami.

Their biggest selling point is that they should be quicker and, eventually, cheaper to build than large conventional reactors. Many of their components will be fabricated in assembly-line fashion, gaining manufacturing experience and lowering costs by standardisation. On-site construction and changes of plan, the bane of many new nuclear sites, will be minimised. Financial exposure will be less, lowering the risk and cost of capital.

Unlocking the promise of SMRs needs deep-pocketed, long-term and risk-tolerant investors. After several false turns and doors barred firmly by engineering, finance or regulation, the industry may finally have found its key in cash-rich Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

Some Middle East countries are also awake to the promise of SMRs, as their net-zero carbon and data centre ambitions grow. In December, the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation signed co-operation agreements with X-energy and three other SMR developers. Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals is working on its own SMR design, and the kingdom is co-operating with South Korea on its Smart reactor.

SMRs are still a tough sell in the Gulf, even with its booming electricity needs, given the abundance of land for cheap solar power backed up with batteries. Yet the tech giants’ commitments demonstrate confidence as well as urgency to meet vast energy projections. Artificial intelligence may be the parent to beautiful small reactors.

Source: THENATIONALNEWS

THE WAY FORWARD

The global landscape of business and investment is undergoing a transformative shift, driven by heightened awareness of climate change, social inequality and corporate governance. Over the past two decades, the ESG (environmental, social and governance) framework has not only emerged but thrived as a pivotal instrument, illuminating the remarkable capacity to assess and enhance the sustainability, ethical standards and long-term viability of companies worldwide.

However, as we face the complexities of today’s world, it is essential to not only adapt but also improve this framework to meet evolving challenges. Thus, it is time to expand the ESG framework to include resilience, ushering in the era of ESGR (environmental, social, governance and resilience).

Introducing resilience: The fourth dimension

Recent global events have highlighted the struggles of companies lacking resilience. The Covid-19 pandemic brought unprecedented challenges, from supply chain disruptions to sudden shifts in consumer behaviour. Geopolitical tensions, such as the conflict in Ukraine, have further destabilised markets, particularly impacting industries dependent on the region for raw materials. These crises underscore the need for resilience in the corporate world.

While the traditional ESG framework provides a solid foundation for evaluating corporate responsibility, it falls short in addressing the rapid changes and uncertainties of our modern world.

Environmental criteria assess a company’s role as a custodian of nature; social criteria examine its relationships with stakeholders; and governance criteria scrutinise its leadership and operational transparency. However, this framework lacks a dedicated focus on resilience — a vital component for navigating the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world we inhabit. Resilience, defined as the capacity to adapt, recover and thrive in the face of adversity, represents the missing link in the ESG framework.

By incorporating resilience as the fourth pillar, we acknowledge the imperative of not merely withstanding shocks but also evolving and emerging stronger. This addition is particularly pertinent in an era defined by unprecedented challenges such as climate change, pandemics and technological disruptions.

Key components of resilience

Resilience in the corporate world hinges on three fundamental components, each serving as pillars upon which enduring success is built.

Compliance with legal changes: The rapid changes in legal requirements across environmental, social and governance domains necessitate that companies develop adaptive strategies to remain compliant and resilient. For instance, China’s aggressive carbon reduction policies forced unprepared factories to shut down or relocate, whereas resilient companies promptly adopted renewable energy practices and reduced carbon emissions. The EU’s GDPR in 2018 required drastic data protection overhauls. While proactive companies successfully navigated the shift, many like Meta and Amazon are facing fines.

Ensuring economic stability: Businesses must maintain strong financial health by diversifying their income streams and being prepared for economic downturns to ensure resilience. Companies unprepared for economic crises often face severe consequences, such as layoffs or closures. During the 2008 global financial crisis, Lehman Brothers collapsed due to its overreliance on high-risk investments, leading to significant job losses and market instability. Similarly, the Covid-19 pandemic forced JCPenney into bankruptcy due to declining sales and debt. In contrast, resilient companies like Amazon, which diversified its business and enhanced its digital infrastructure, thrived.

Maintaining operational continuity: Companies need to establish resilient supply chains and business operations capable of withstanding disruptions from natural disasters, geopolitical tensions or other crises. For instance, during the Covid-19 pandemic, Procter & Gamble’s proactive supply chain management and diversified manufacturing locations enabled it to maintain product availability despite global disruptions. On the other hand, Peloton encountered challenges with its supply chain, resulting in delays in product deliveries and impacting customer satisfaction.

Building resilient foundations with RIC

Risk assessment, innovation and competency (RIC) form the bedrock of resilience, representing the essential elements upon which an organisation’s ability to adapt and thrive in dynamic environments rests.

A study by PwC found that organisations that embrace strategic risk management are five times more likely to deliver stakeholder confidence and two times more likely to expect faster revenue growth. This highlights the critical role of risk assessment in enhancing resilience to the modern world’s challenges. Effective risk assessment involves identifying, analysing and mitigating potential risks that could jeopardise business operations. This process includes not only ensuring daily operations comply with regulations but also anticipating and addressing potential risks that could cause business disruptions. Through comprehensive risk assessment processes, organisations can anticipate potential disruptions, minimise vulnerabilities and enhance their capacity to withstand adverse conditions.

Innovation serves as a catalyst for resilience by driving the development of new solutions and approaches to address evolving market dynamics. Fostering a culture of innovation encourages creativity, adaptability and forward-thinking, enabling companies to stay ahead of the curve and respond effectively to changing business landscapes. A McKinsey study found that companies with a high commitment to innovation are 2.4 times more likely to experience revenue growth. However, only 23% of companies prioritise innovation as one of their top two concerns. Innovation does not always mean creating new inventions. It can also involve adopting emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain and renewable energy solutions.

Embracing a spectrum of competencies within the boardroom is imperative for guiding companies towards resilience and sustainable expansion. Yet, according to a recent study conducted by Deloitte, merely 36% of board members worldwide possess expertise in technology, underscoring a notable deficiency in diversified skill sets. This disparity underscores the importance of fostering a board environment rich in varied proficiencies. Such diversity not only fosters a holistic evaluation of opportunities and threats but also fosters well-informed strategic decision-making, ultimately fortifying the organisation’s capacity to adeptly navigate multifaceted challenges.

Creating a forward-thinking standard with ESGR

I urge global stakeholders to recognise the pivotal role of resilience in sustainability. By transitioning from ESG to ESGR, we can create a robust, forward-thinking standard that addresses the multifaceted challenges of our time, safeguarding businesses and investments while fostering a more sustainable and resilient global economy. Integrating resilience into the ESG framework is essential for survival and growth in an increasingly volatile world, and this evolution offers an opportunity to shape a future characterised by sustainability, resilience and prosperity.

Source: The edge markets

Trump’s Re-election Momentum Fuels Dollar Rally

Diverging Monetary Policies Support the Dollar’s Ascent

Global Inflation Dynamics and Impact on Central Banks

BNY Mellon has traditionally been a fairly stable, mostly boring stock. But not this year.

BNY Mellon is not the type of stock that comes to mind when looking to add growth to your portfolio. But that’s what it has delivered over the past year, as it has not only been the best performing bank stock over the past year; it has outgained most of the Magnificent Seven stocks.

It may also represent one of the rare mistakes by Warren Buffett, who owned the stock for 13 years in his Berkshire Hathaway  portfolio until he completely dumped out of it in 2023.

That move came in the first half of last year, when the banking industry was going through a deposit crisis. But BNY Mellon, which stands for Bank of New York Mellon, is not like traditional banks, so it managed the crisis fairly well.

Since then, it has outperformed all of its large bank rivals, returning 82% over the past 12 months and 45% year-to-date. Here’s why this bank stock is quietly crushing the market.

In the room where it happened

BNY Mellon is as old, staid, and blue-chip as it gets on the stock market, as its roots trace back to 1784 when Bank of New York was founded by Alexander Hamilton.

But it is not your traditional bank because it is a custody bank, which means it does not hold deposits and provide loans like other banks. As a custody bank, it holds assets for large corporations, institutions, and asset managers, including ETF and mutual fund assets, for protection and safekeeping.

It also services those assets, providing various functions like accounting, securities lending, clearing, and handling flows. While it does offer wealth management and asset management for investors, most of its revenue, about 75%, comes from its custody business.

So, unlike traditional consumer banks, BNY Mellon makes most of its money on noninterest fee income, because the company charges fees to hold and service the assets. So, that means 75% of its revenue is fee-based. Typically, consumer banks make most of their money on interest from loans.

This is an advantage for BNY Mellon because fee revenue is typically much sturdier, and less prone to macroeconomic swings. Plus, as the largest custodian, with some $52 trillion in assets under custody, the assets are sticky, meaning they are not likely to change hands.

So, in many ways, BNY Mellon is less risky, and more stable, than most of its competitors, and less susceptible to market volatility.

In this particular market, BNY Mellon has outpaced other banks because it is not weighed down as much as its competitors by high deposit costs and provisions for credit losses. Additionally, it has benefitted from the strong stock market, as it makes more money in revenue when asset levels rise.

In the third quarter, BNY Mellon saw its revenue rise 5% to $4.65 billion, buoyed by a 5% increase in fee revenue. Net income rose 16% to $1.1 billion, while earnings per share climbed 22% to $1.50 per share. Both revenue and earnings topped estimates.

Still cheap, still a buy

BNY Mellon is one of those stocks that has produced steady, consistent results over the years, because of its business model and its dominance in this space. There are very few large custody banks, and BNY Mellon is the biggest of the bunch, so it’s just not likely to see much asset flight.

It is just the type of stock Warren Buffett loves, and why he owned it for so long, which is why it is a bit surprising that he sold out of it.

Of course, its long-term returns pale in comparison to the Magnificent Seven and other high flying growth stocks. But this year, many of the overpriced tech stocks have not performed as well, as investors grew concerned about their high multiples.

BNY Mellon is not typically a high-flier, but it does produce reliable results through various market cycles. It also has a solid dividend that has increased for 14 straight years.

BNY Mellon stock remains a solid buy, even with its great YTD returns, as its valuation is relatively low. Its forward P/E is just 11 and its five-year P/E-to-growth (PEG) ratio is just 0.75, which puts it in value stock territory. 

Source: FXSTREET