Manager upheaval

Portfolio managers resigned from investment manager in March

In early March, GCL’s long-standing portfolio managers, Keith Watson and Robert Crayfourd, announced their resignation from GCL investment manager Manulife CQS Investment Management, where they have spent 12 and 15 years respectively. Both will serve their three-month notice periods, during which they will continue to manage GCL’s portfolio, as well as those of CQS stablemates Golden Prospect Precious Metals (GPM) and CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income (CYN) that they also manage, before taking up roles at Tufton Investment Management to lead their move into natural resources and energy.

GCL’s board served protective notice on manager

GCL’s board has served 12 months’ protective notice to Manulife CQS on its investment management agreement, as have the boards of GPM and CYN. It added that discussions and a review around the options for future portfolio management arrangements were ongoing. It is still unclear whether management will pass to a new team within Manulife CQS (which has engaged two senior portfolio managers, Diana Racanelli and Craig Bethune, to work alongside Keith and Robert in the management of the portfolio) or move to Tufton, or indeed another investment house.

Market outlook

The resignations come at a time when the fundamentals driving growth in the uranium and nuclear energy sector remain attractive. In previous notes on GCL (links to which can be found on page 17) we have discussed at length the long-duration supply deficits and accelerating structural demand (from both traditional reactors and emerging power-intensive industries such as AI data centres) drivers that underpin a multi-year bull case for the uranium sector.

Bottleneck in uranium mining

Investor sentiment has so far seen capital flow through the fuel supply chain and reactor stocks and capital targeted around conversion and enrichment where bottlenecks exist. However, uranium miners – which is where GCL’s portfolio is concentrated – have largely been overlooked. GCL’s managers say that it is becoming increasingly apparent that uranium mining is the key bottleneck in the nuclear supply chain. If this is the case, GCL’s portfolio companies should benefit as recognition of this grows, to the benefit of GCL’s asset value.

Macro backdrop – geopolitics and energy security

The Russia-Ukraine conflict, which has entered its fifth year, has led to Western governments reassessing their dependence on Russian nuclear fuel services, accelerating investment in domestic conversion and enrichment capacity across the US and Europe. GCL’s managers say that ceasefire talks had appeared to jolt investors into believing that dependence on Russia would return in the event of the war ending. However, they believe this sentiment to be disconnected from reality.

Firstly, they state, Russian material has been coming to the market throughout the war, with the full ban in the US yet to be fully implemented and the US still importing. Secondly, Western reactors will continue to look to diversify sources of supply away from Russia (which accounts for around 5%-6% of global uranium supply – but has significant influence over Kazakhstan’s c.40% global market share – and a large portion of both conversion and enrichment) to protect against a potential flare-up of the conflict or future conflicts.

War in Middle East reinforced need for energy security

Regardless of any ceasefire, the structural shift has already been occurred, and energy security is no longer theoretical. War in the Middle East has only reinforced this and investor interest in the broader energy complex – including critical minerals such as uranium – has grown.

The geopolitical backdrop has elevated uranium to a highly strategic commodity. Within the context of the US-China trade war, China has been able to exercise leverage through its control of rare earth minerals. Alongside its Russian ally, China could exert a similar level of control and influence over the uranium market, the managers contend. This formed the rationale behind the US’s plans to build its own strategic reserve, with nuclear accounting for around 20% of US power generation.

As Western nations have scrambled to secure energy, much of the investment has so far been directed towards the enrichment and conversion stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. This will go some way to easing these bottlenecks, which the managers believe can be addressed in a three-year period. Mining of the raw U3O8, however, is now the ultimate bottleneck, the managers feel, and there is a far longer lead time required to bring on new supply.

Uranium supply deficits to persists until at least the mid-2030s

There are very few new uranium projects being developed – with the one major exception being GCL’s largest holding NexGen’s Rook I uranium project (which we explore in more detail on page 8). Large, high-grade, politically stable projects remain scarce, and as uranium deficits persist, their strategic value should rise.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) projects that uranium supply deficits will be persist and get worse through to at least the mid-2030s, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Uranium market supply-demand imbalance

GCL’s managers note that the WNA forecast was based on a best-case scenario on the supply side and produced before recently announced production downgrades and operational challenges. These include issues at major producers, with Cameco lowering its production guide and Kazatomprom reducing production expectations due to an ongoing acid shortage. It also assumes that currently unpermitted development projects come online on time.

Uranium price needs to rise to incentivise development

Even under these optimistic assumptions, the supply gap remains difficult to close, leading GCL’s managers to conclude that uranium prices will need to be structurally elevated to incentivise brownfield restarts and greenfield developments.

Figure 2: Spot uranium price 2000 – 2026 (US$/lb U3O8)

AI data centres and nuclear power

Off-grid nuclear reactors a viable solution to power-hungry AI data centres

Added to the fundamental supply-demand imbalance, an explosion in the growth of AI and the resultant energy demand required to power the data centre infrastructure is widening the gap further. Nuclear’s quality as a zero-carbon baseload energy source coupled with the vast power requirements of a data centre (a single hyperscale facility can consume over 1 gigawatt (GW) of power) make the two ideal companions. Indeed, the substantial power consumption of data centres has led many hyperscalers and developers in the US to deliver their own off-grid power solutions to supply their data centres.

Hyperscalers backing development of small modular reactors across the US

Whilst gas turbines have provided a short-term solution (though demand has seen lead times increase to more than five years), the only long-term solution that can really be delivered sustainably is one that includes nuclear reactors – either through small modular reactors (SMRs – which are quicker to bring online and easier to finance) or full-scale reactors to power AI data centre clusters. Recent examples include Amazon signing a purchase power agreement with Talen Energy for the long-term supply of 1.9GW of electricity to its data centre campus in Pennsylvania from Talen’s adjacent Susquehanna nuclear power plant. Amazon also has an SMR partnership with Dominion Energy, while Alphabet has struck a deal with Kairos Power to provide up to 500GW of power from seven SMRs.

On top of this, old reactors are being restarted or having their life extended. The Three Mile Island reactor is probably the most familiar example, where Microsoft has signed a 20-year deal to purchase power from the Pennsylvania plant, which was the scene of a catastrophic accident in the late 1970s, when it restarts in 2027. Other examples include Holtec’s Palisades plant, which was shut in 2022 but is due to restart this year, and Duane Arnold, which is currently in the process of being restarted by NextEra Energy with support from Google after shutting in 2020.

Development in China far outstrips activity in the US and underpins global uranium demand

All this activity in the US pales into insignificance compared to the reactor buildout in China (see Figure 3). Even without incremental AI demand, the global nuclear buildout already underpins a strong structural case for uranium demand.

With this in mind, GCL’s managers say that nuclear fuel and generation can be construed as an AI infrastructure investment that offers plenty of downside protection. It is also a cheaper entry point into the AI infrastructure investment trade than through technology equities that are trading on premium multiples.

Figure 3: Generating capacity by region (GW)

Utilities – the missing buyer

Despite the fraught geopolitical backdrop, visible supply deficits and the opportunity created from the rise of AI, Western utility companies have largely remained on the sidelines. With deficits so visible, why have utilities not rushed to contract more aggressively? GCL’s managers believe several factors may explain this, including the traditionally conservative nature of utilities’ contracting, inventory management strategies delaying procurement urgency, and anticipation of new supply from advanced-stage projects (although there are few projects in the pipeline – the exception being NexGen’s Rook I project – more details on page 8).

However, with production guidance being revised downwards and geopolitical risks persisting, utilities may find themselves forced back into the market. The last time utilities replenished stock, in 2023, the uranium spot price rose above $100/lb. The managers say that that has largely been used up, and expect a marked uplift in contracting activity, with spot prices likely to move higher as a result.

Asset allocation

GCL’s portfolio is highly concentrated with inherently low turnover

GCL’s portfolio is highly concentrated, with the top five holdings accounting for 67.9% of the fund (see Figure 6). Figures 4 and 5 show that the portfolio’s geographical allocation is focused on companies in North America. Typically, around a half of GCL’s portfolio is invested in safer assets; that is, producers or companies backed by physical uranium. Pure exploration plays represent a more limited exposure within the fund.

Figure 4: GCL portfolio split by geography_¹

Figure 5: GCL portfolio split by sector

In part reflecting the managers’ investment style, but also the concentrated nature of the industry, GCL’s portfolio is inherently low-turnover. Changes in the composition of the top five holdings (discussed in more detail below) are frequently driven by differences in near-term relative performance, rather than other considerations. The managers typically expect portfolio turnover to be between 10%-20% per annum, but much of this will be trimming stocks whose prices have got ahead of themselves, and adding to holdings where the managers see more value.

As at 30 September 2025, GCL had one unlisted investment and seven unlisted warrants.

GCL has exposure to physically-backed uranium entities through its holding in Sprott Uranium Trust (4.6% at 30 September 2025). However, in comparison to alternatives such as the URA exchange traded fund (ETF), GCL is underweight Cameco and Kazatomprom.

Top five holdings

Figure 6 shows GCL’s top five holdings at 31 March 2026 and how these have changed over six months. The portfolio is focused on names that the managers believe will benefit from an increase in the uranium price, and the anticipated increase in Western reactor contracting.

Figure 6: Top five holdings as at 31 March 2026

NexGen Energy (23.9%)

Figure 7: NexGen Energy share price (CAD)

In early March, NexGen Energy (www.nexgenenergy.ca), which has been GCL’s largest holding by a significant margin for some time, received the final regulatory approval for the Rook I uranium project in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, and will begin construction later this year. Whilst approval has been a long time coming, its receipt has materially enhanced the company’s future earnings prospects. With the project largely uncontracted, NexGen retains significant exposure to upside in the uranium price. NexGen’s share price has risen 153% over the past 12 months.

The uranium mine and mill development at Rook I is the largest and also one of the most advanced development stage uranium mining projects in the world. A 2021 feasibility study forecast production of up to 31 million lbs of U3O8 annually over a 24-year mine life.

NexGen is well funded to commence construction, which is expected to take four years to complete, having already completed equity raises and offtake agreements. Further offtake agreements are in advanced negotiation, the company says, with contracts expected to be announced this year.

Paladin Energy (15.5%)

Figure 8: Paladin Energy share price (AUD)

Paladin Energy (www.paladinenergy.com.au) is a Western Australian-based uranium production company that currently has one operating mine – the Langer Heinrich Mine in Namibia (of which it owns 75%). The company reported a 16% increase in quarterly uranium production (to 1.23Mlb) in the three months to the end of December 2025 and sold 1.43Mlb U3O8 at an average price of $71.8/lb. Paladin is targeting full mining and processing capacity by the end of 2026. At full production, the Langer Heinrich Mine’s annual uranium output is sufficient to supply more than ten 1,000-MW nuclear power plants annually.

In February, Paladin received government approval for the Environmental Impact Statement for its Patterson Lake South project, adjacent to NexGen’s Rook I asset, in Saskatchewan.

UR-Energy (14.6%)

Figure 9: UR-Energy share price (CAD)

UR-Energy (www.ur-energy.com/), a long-time GCL holding, is a junior uranium mining company that operates fully-permitted, low-cost, in-situ assets in the US. In December 2025, the company issued a $120m convertible bond that will provide further funding for the restart of its Wyoming projects. Production at its facility at Lost Creek in south-central Wyoming (which has a historic production of 2.7Mlbs) is recommencing after the company gained final approval for its expansion in May last year. Meanwhile construction is underway at its Shirley Basin site that will transform it into a two-mine operation, expanding operations and increasing production capacity to 4.2Mlbs.

Cameco (7.1%)

Figure 10: Cameco share price (CAD)

Cameco (www.cameco.com) has for a long time been one of GCL’s largest underweight positions relative to the Global X Uranium ETF, which had a 22.8% exposure to Cameco at 23 April 2026. GCL’s managers say that its bearish stance on the world’s largest publicly-traded uranium company stems from the fact that it has largely contracted out 180 million lbs of uranium for the next five years and therefore will have limited participation in any upside in the U3O8 spot price, as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Cameco’s expected uranium price sensitivity under various spot price assumptions

The managers believe that Cameco’s market leading position in the sector justifies its place and weighting within the portfolio. Cameco’s land holdings, including exploration, span about 1.9 million acres, the majority of which are located in northern Saskatchewan, at the Athabasca Basin. It is home to two of the world’s largest high-grade uranium deposits, in Cigar Lake and McArthur River/Key Lake.

Denison Mines (6.8%)

Figure 12: Denison share price (CAD)

Uranium exploration and development company Denison Mines (www.denisonmines.com) has recently started construction of its flagship Phoenix project, in the Athabasca Basin region of northern Saskatchewan, Canada, having now received all regulatory approvals. The in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium mine will become one of the few new sizable sources of uranium production expected to come to market before the end of the decade. Denison’s share price had receded towards the end of 2025 on the announcement that expected development capex had increased around 40% to CAD$600m, but rose nearly 10% in February following the granting of the licence by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in the month.

Denison’s portfolio also consists of other projects in the Athabasca Basin, including its 90% owned Wheeler River project (which the company says is the largest undeveloped high-grade uranium project in the infrastructure rich eastern portion of the Athabasca Basin region), as well as interests in the McClean Lake and Waterbury Lake.

Performance

GCL has delivered strong returns over the past 12 months, with NAV more than doubling. However, its share price has failed to keep pace, rising 94.4% over the year to 31 March 2026. Figure 13 is distorted by the incredible share price performance of Cameco over the past four years. The blue-chip Uranium name has been a go-to for generalist investors looking to gain exposure to the uranium sector, which has been a factor in the strong gains it has experienced. However, as discussed earlier, Cameco will have limited participation in a sustained uplift in the uranium spot price over the next few years.

Figure 13: GCL share price and NAV versus the Global X Uranium ETF and Cameco – rebased to 100 over five years to 31 March 2026

Although GCL had fallen behind the Global X Uranium ETF over three and five years, it has outperformed over the past 12 months and over 10 years. This performance data does not compensate for the dilution effect of sub-shares, which whilst this has not disadvantaged shareholders that either took up rights or received payment for sold rights, it does act to dilute the headline performance.

Figure 14: Cumulative total return performance over periods ending 31 March 2026

Figure 15 illustrates GCL’s NAV performance relative to the Global X Uranium ETF over five years.

Figure 15: GCL NAV performance relative to the Global X Uranium ETF¹ – rebased to 100 over five years to 31 March 2026

Peer group

Click here for a live comparison of the commodities and natural resources peer group

GCL is a member of the AIC’s sector specialist commodities and natural resources sector, which is comprised of nine members. We have excluded three of these from our peer group analysis – Global Resources Investment Trust (GRIT) and Tiger Royalties and Investments (TIR) on size grounds (both sub-£5m market cap) and Riverstone Energy, which is in a managed wind-down process.

None of the funds used are perfect comparators, with GCL the only fund that invests in listed uranium equities. We have added Yellow Cake Plc (YCA) to the peer group, which is focused on uranium, but invests in physical uranium.

Figure 16: Peer group cumulative NAV total return performance to 31 March 2026

Figures 16 and 17 show GCL’s NAV and share price performance in the middle of the pack over most periods and leading the pack over one year in NAV terms (although, as mentioned, it is far from a perfect peer group comparison with specialist funds focused on other commodity/mining sectors). GCL has outperformed Yellow Cake over one and three years.

Figure 17: Peer group cumulative share price total return performance to 31 March 2026

Figure 18 shows that GCL’s ongoing charges ratio ranks towards the bottom end of its peer group, reflecting its relatively small size. If performance improves in the way the manager expects, this should lead to GCL trading at a premium and issuing stock as it has in the past, which should put downward pressure on the ongoing charges ratio. GCL’s net gearing is the highest in the peer group, meaning that it will benefit if uranium performs well, but suffer disproportionately if not.

Of the two uranium funds, GCL is the more expensive, but it has a much longer track record.

Figure 18: Peer group comparison – size, fees, discount, yield and gearing at 23 April 2026

Premium/(discount)

GCL has traded at an average discount of 9.5% over 12 months

GCL’s discount has widened during the last year, having been around par in the early part of 2025. On 23 April 2026 its discount was 13.8%. Over the last year, GCL has traded at an average discount of 9.5% (with a range of a 3.2% premium to a 19.8% discount). This is at the cheaper end of its trading range over five years (7.4% average discount).

Figure 19: GCL premium/(discount) over five years

Fund profile

Further information can be found at: ncim.co.uk/geiger-counter-ltd

GCL aims to provide investors with attractive returns, primarily in the form of capital growth, by investing in a portfolio of securities of companies involved in the exploration, development and production of energy and related service companies. Its main focus is uranium, but to allow diversification beyond this highly concentrated sector, up to 30% of assets can be invested in other resource-related companies.

GCL does not have a formal benchmark and is not managed with the aim of providing outperformance relative to an index. Instead, the portfolio is managed with a more absolute return mindset, with the managers selecting securities that they believe will provide the best risk-adjusted returns over the longer term. Although the managers consider uranium a beneficiary of long-term structural growth drivers, the portfolio is focused on securities that the managers believe are undervalued. The expectation is that such securities will re-rate over time, and therefore provide the scope for capital appreciation beyond what the market expects.

GCL has a global remit, but its portfolio tends to be biased towards North American- and Australian-listed equities. The portfolio is predominantly invested in equities, but it is not restricted to these and can also invest in convertible securities, fixed-income securities and warrants.

Investment manager

New City Investment Managers (NCIM) has been GCL’s investment manager since its launch in July 2006. On 1 October 2007, NCIM joined the CQS Group, a global diversified asset manager running multiple strategies. In November 2023, CQS was acquired by Manulife Investment Management. As mentioned earlier, GCL’s board served protective notice on the investment manager after long-term portfolio managers Keith Watson and Rob Crayfourd resigned from the company.

No formal benchmark index

Reflecting both its specialist investment proposition and a relatively small universe, GCL does not have a formal benchmark. However, for the purpose of performance evaluation, the manager has traditionally made comparisons against the price of Cameco and the spot price of triuranium octoxide (U3O8 – the most stable uranium compound and consequently one of the more popular forms of the product).

This note includes comparisons against Cameco…

Cameco is the largest listed uranium producer in the world and the second-largest uranium producer. It also provides the processing services needed to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. Cameco has a Canadian listing and its share price and the associated total return series are readily available, so they have been included in this report. Comparisons against the spot price of U3O8 have not been included, due to reduced visibility of the U3O8 spot price and the fact that the majority of market practitioners cannot invest directly in this commodity.

… and the Global X Uranium ETF

Finally, the Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has also been used as a comparator in this note. This is a large (net assets of around US$7.95bn) and liquid ETF that provides investors with access to a broad range of companies involved in uranium mining and the production of nuclear components (this includes companies involved in extraction, refining, exploration, or manufacturing of equipment for the uranium and nuclear industries). Its objective is to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index.

SWOT analysis

Figure 20: SWOT analysis for GCL

Bull vs bear case

Figure 21: Bull vs bear case for GCL

Previous publications

Readers interested in further information about GCL may wish to read our previous notes. You can read the notes by clicking on the links below or by visiting our website.

Figure 22: QuotedData’s previously published notes on GCL

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

This marketing communication has been prepared for Geiger Counter Limited by Marten & Co (which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority) and is non-independent research as defined under Article 36 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID). It is intended for use by investment professionals as defined in article 19 (5) of the Financial Services Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005. Marten & Co is not authorised to give advice to retail clients and, if you are not a professional investor, or in any other way are prohibited or restricted from receiving this information, you should disregard it. The note does not have regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and needs of any specific person who may receive it.

The note has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such is considered to be a marketing communication. The analysts who prepared this note are not constrained from dealing ahead of it, but in practice, and in accordance with our internal code of good conduct, will refrain from doing so for the period from which they first obtained the information necessary to prepare the note until one month after the note’s publication. Nevertheless, they may have an interest in any of the securities mentioned within this note.

This note has been compiled from publicly available information. This note is not directed at any person in any jurisdiction where (by reason of that person’s nationality, residence or otherwise) the publication or availability of this note is prohibited.

Accuracy of Content: Whilst Marten & Co uses reasonable efforts to obtain information from sources which we believe to be reliable and to ensure that the information in this note is up to date and accurate, we make no representation or warranty that the information contained in this note is accurate, reliable or complete. The information contained in this note is provided by Marten & Co for personal use and information purposes generally. You are solely liable for any use you may make of this information. The information is inherently subject to change without notice and may become outdated. You, therefore, should verify any information obtained from this note before you use it.

No Advice: Nothing contained in this note constitutes or should be construed to constitute investment, legal, tax or other advice.

No Representation or Warranty: No representation, warranty or guarantee of any kind, express or implied is given by Marten & Co in respect of any information contained on this note.

Exclusion of Liability: To the fullest extent allowed by law, Marten & Co shall not be liable for any direct or indirect losses, damages, costs or expenses incurred or suffered by you arising out or in connection with the access to, use of or reliance on any information contained on this note. In no circumstance shall Marten & Co and its employees have any liability for consequential or special damages.

Governing Law and Jurisdiction: These terms and conditions and all matters connected with them, are governed by the laws of England and Wales and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. If you access this note from outside the UK, you are responsible for ensuring compliance with any local laws relating to access.

No information contained in this note shall form the basis of, or be relied upon in connection with, any offer or commitment whatsoever in any jurisdiction.

Investment Performance Information: Please remember that past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future and that the value of shares and the income from them can go down as well as up. Exchange rates may also cause the value of underlying overseas investments to go down as well as up. Marten & Co may write on companies that use gearing in a number of forms that can increase volatility and, in some cases, to a complete loss of an investment.