New managers, renewed focus

Geiger Counter (GCL) has moved beyond the period of uncertainty created by its long-standing portfolio managers’ departure from Manulife CQS. After considering its options, GCL’s board has retained Manulife CQS on improved terms, with Toronto-based managers Diana Racanelli and Craig Bethune maintaining its specialist uranium strategy. A 27.9% management fee reduction benefits shareholders.

Despite relatively resilient uranium prices and encouraging industry fundamentals, GCL’s net asset value fell 28.8% in the six months to September 2026, reflecting concerns over AI-related investment, financing costs and investor sentiment. The longer-term investment case remains compelling: growing nuclear power demand, driven by energy security, decarbonisation and rising electricity consumption, is expected to increase pressure on uranium supplies. GCL’s concentrated investments in uranium producers and developers offer considerable potential gains if these trends materialise.

Capital growth from portfolio of uranium stocks

GCL aims to deliver capital growth by investing in securities of companies exploring, developing and producing energy, mainly in the uranium sector. Up to 30% of assets can be invested in other resource-related companies.

At a glance

Share price and discount

GCL’s share price weakness in 2026 comes after a period of impressive returns. Over the past year, GCL’s discount to NAV averaged 10.4%, ranging from 2.1% to 19.8%, making it cheaper than its five-year average discount of 8.8%. On 20 October 2026, its discount was 5.4%.

Share price and discount

GCL’s share price weakness in 2026 comes after a period of impressive returns. Over the past year, GCL’s discount to NAV averaged 10.4%, ranging from 2.1% to 19.8%, making it cheaper than its five-year average discount of 8.8%. On 20 October 2026, its discount was 5.4%.

Manager update

GCL’s board opted to retain the services of its existing management house, Manulife CQS, following the departure of long-standing portfolio managers Keith Watson and Rob Crayfourd earlier this year, but with a new team and improved terms.

After the pair resigned from Manulife CQS Investment Management in March 2026, GCL’s board gave 12 months’ protective notice while it reviewed the future management arrangements. Portfolio management was then delegated to Manulife Investment Management in Toronto, with Diana Racanelli and Craig Bethune taking over in May.

GCL has retained Manulife CQS following its management review

The board’s review concluded that retaining Manulife CQS was in shareholders’ best interests. Racanelli remains lead portfolio manager, supported by Bethune and dedicated analyst Olivia Chamie. They can also draw on Manulife’s global resources team of 24 investment professionals, managing around $1.7bn.

The three investment companies previously managed by Watson and Crayfourd have taken different paths. City Natural Resources Growth and Income (CYN) followed them to Tufton Investment Management, Golden Prospect Precious Metals (GPM) appointed Baker Steel, and GCL has retained Manulife CQS.

A 27.9% reduction in its annual management fee has been secured

As part of the agreement, from 1 October, GCL’s annual management fee fell from 1.3875% to 1% of net assets, a 27.9% reduction. Manulife CQS has also agreed to increase the marketing budget and contribute towards the costs GCL incurred in carrying out the management review.

The new managers – continuity of approach

The review’s conclusion removed a key source of uncertainty that has hung over GCL since March and clarifies how the portfolio is likely to develop under Racanelli and Bethune.

Both are experienced natural resources investors: Racanelli has invested in mining shares for almost four decades, while Bethune specialises in energy. They have worked together for around 20 years and can draw on Manulife’s wider natural resources and asset allocation teams.

New managers favour smaller uranium companies offering greater gains from rising prices

Their approach so far largely follows Watson and Crayfourd’s. They favour small and medium-sized uranium companies, believing these offer greater potential gains from rising uranium prices than larger, more diversified businesses. They already know many of GCL holdings through other Manulife portfolios.

New managers may reduce portfolio concentration to manage risk …

There may be changes in how risk is managed, particularly for portfolio concentration. At the end of September, GCL’s five largest holdings represented just over 68% of the portfolio, with NexGen Energy accounting for 23.7%. The managers say they may reduce some of the larger holdings as opportunities emerge elsewhere.

This does not change their positive view of NexGen, also held in other Manulife portfolios. Racanelli and Bethune highlight the quality and scale of its Rook I project in Canada’s Athabasca Basin and potential gains as it advances towards production. However, reducing the holding’s size would instead lower the risk of having such a large investment in one development-stage company.

The announcement concluding the board’s review confirmed no change to GCL’s investment objective. The portfolio will remain focused on companies exploring for, developing and producing uranium for the nuclear power industry. The balance between producers and developers is likely to remain important.

… and gearing levels

The managers say that they may reduce borrowing to manage portfolio risk. Gearing stood at 13.9% at the end of September. Some borrowing will be retained where they see attractive opportunities, particularly if the expected increase in utility contracting materialises, as detailed below.

Overall, the change in investment team is likely to lead to an evolution in portfolio’s construction rather than fundamentally changing GCL’s purpose.

With the management question settled and GCL’s uranium focus reaffirmed, attention returns to the uranium market outlook.

Uranium market outlook

Uranium equities have been volatile despite resilient uranium prices

Stronger market fundamentals have yet to lift uranium equities. GCL’s net asset value fell 14.0% in June and 9.3% in July, broadly matching uranium-focused exchange-traded funds. It rebounded 18.8% in August, outperforming the wider sector, before falling 18.5% in September.

Uranium prices have been more resilient. The spot price ended June at $85.50/lb, rising to $86.60/lb in July and $89.35/lb in August. The managers see high long-term contract prices, sovereign buying and signs of increased contracting by utilities as evidence of tight supply, supporting the medium-term price outlook.

Concerns about AI investment and financing costs have affected uranium equities

Some earlier weakness in uranium shares reflected wider market sentiment rather than weaker uranium fundamentals. Uranium companies are increasingly linked to AI and growing power demand. Concerns about the scale and financing of major technology companies’ investment spending therefore spread to nuclear-related shares earlier in the summer. Higher interest rates have added to these concerns, particularly for development-stage companies that will need substantial capital to bring new mines into production.

August’s sharp rebound highlighted uranium shares’ potential gains when sentiment improves and market conditions are supportive. For GCL, it also underlined its balance between producers, offering exposure to current prices and contracted revenues, and developers, whose substantial uncontracted future production offers greater potential gains as long-term uranium prices rise.

Figure 1: Spot uranium price 2000 – 2026 (US$/lb U₃O₈)

Contracting becoming increasingly important

Developments in the long-term contracting market are arguably more important to the investment case than movements in the thinly traded spot market. Utilities buy much of their uranium through multi-year contracts. After some delayed purchases in anticipation of extra supply becoming available, the managers now see signs of accelerating activity.

This matters particularly for development-stage companies, which feature prominently in GCL’s portfolio. Higher long-term prices can make projects more viable and encourage investment, while companies with future production not yet under contract retain more exposure to further price rises.

Security of supply is increasingly important. Years of underinvestment followed the 2011 Fukushima disaster, while geopolitical tensions have heightened demand for secure domestic or allied nuclear fuel sources. This creates an incentive for utilities to contract future supplies rather than rely on cheaper new production becoming available.

A widening longer-term supply gap

Mine production cannot currently meet reactor requirements, with secondary sources covering the shortfall. New production, including from Canada, the US and Namibia, should start over the rest of this decade and could temporarily improve the supply-demand balance in the early 2030.

New uranium production could temporarily ease supply pressures, but Stifel forecasts a widening deficit from the mid-2030s

Stifel’s forecasts in Figure 2 suggest new mines could narrow the supply deficit this decade, potentially creating a modest surplus in the early 2030s. However, rising reactor demand and declining existing production are expected to restore the deficit from the mid-2030s, with the shortfall exceeding 100m lbs of U3O8 by the decade’s end.

Figure 2: Uranium demand and implied supply surplus/(deficit)

Bringing enough new uranium supply online to meet the anticipated demand carries considerable risk. Mines can take years to move from discovery through permitting, financing and construction to production, with geological, labour, equipment and supply-chain constraints. Delays could therefore quickly erase the brief improvement in supply-demand balance that is currently forecast.

Canada’s Athabasca Basin is expected to be a key source of new production, which is relevant to GCL given its substantial exposure to the region. Denison Mines’ Phoenix project entered full-scale construction in July, followed by NexGen Energy’s Rook I in August. Production is targeted from 2028 at Phoenix and expected around 2030 at Rook I. GCL also has exposure to nearer-term production and output increases through Paladin Energy and UR-Energy.

Nuclear build-out gathers pace

Energy security, decarbonisation and rising electricity demand are driving nuclear investment, with 75 reactors under construction globally in April 2026

Uranium demand is also rising. Government support for nuclear power has increased across a number of countries nuclear power as countries aim to secure energy supplies, cut emissions and meet growing electricity needs.

China remains at the forefront of this trend, approving at least 10 reactors annually since 2022. In April 2026, 75 reactors were under construction globally, with another 124 planned and 305 proposed.

Figure 3: Global nuclear reactor pipeline

Policy support continues to develop. China is expanding nuclear power, India has advanced proposals for limited private investment in its nuclear sector, and the US supports conventional reactors and smaller-scale nuclear generation.

Rising electricity use, particularly from AI and data centres, could boost demand. Nuclear’s ability to provide continuous baseload power output makes it well suited to this growth, but long construction times mean other sources must meet much of the immediate increase in demand.

Longer term, greater electrification, data centre expansion and demand for reliable low-carbon power could strengthen the case for more nuclear generation.

GCL’s portfolio favours companies whose value depends on future production economics as well as today’s uranium price. Developers with large resources not yet under contract could benefit disproportionately from higher long-term prices. Progress with permits, financing and construction could also boost value as project risks fall.

The arrival of new supply over the rest of this decade means the uranium market may not tighten steadily. But whether enough new production can be brought online quickly enough remains a longer-term challenge. This potential imbalance is central to GCL’s investment case.

Asset allocation

GCL’s portfolio is highly concentrated with low turnover

GCL’s top five holdings account for 68.4% of the fund (see Figure 6), with a geographical focus on North American companies (Figures 4 and 5). Typically, around half the portfolio is invested in safer assets: producers or companies backed by physical uranium. Exposure to companies focused solely on exploration is more limited.

Figure 4: GCL portfolio split by geography_¹

Figure 5: GCL portfolio split by sector_¹

GCL holds physically backed uranium through Sprott Uranium Trust (4.1% at 31 March 2026) and Yellow Cake (1.1%). Its Cameco and Kazatomprom weightings are lower than those of alternatives such as the URA exchange-traded fund.

Top five holdings

Figure 6 shows GCL’s five largest holdings at 30 September 2026 and six-month changes. The portfolio favours companies the managers believe will benefit from higher uranium prices and expected growth in Western reactor contracting.

Figure 6: Top five holdings as at 30 September 2026

NexGen Energy (23.7%)

Figure 7: NexGen Energy share price (CAD)

NexGen Energy (www.nexgenenergy.ca) remains GCL’s largest holding, at 23.7% of gross assets at September 2026’s end. It secured final regulatory approval for its Rook I uranium project in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, in March. Construction began in June, with the official groundbreaking in August, moving the project beyond the lengthy permitting process to full-scale development.

Rook I, centred on the high-grade Arrow deposit, is among the world’s largest and most advanced uranium development projects. It is expected to produce up to 30 million lbs of uranium oxide, U3O8, annually. Construction should take around four years, with first production targeted around 2030. NexGen has strengthened its finances through substantial equity fundraising, including C$950m in October 2025, while advancing uranium sales agreements with major utilities.

Rook I remains largely uncontracted, leaving NexGen significantly exposed to future uranium prices. Agreements cover 10 million lbs of future production, with market-linked pricing, but substantial reserves remain uncontracted. GCL’s managers highlight the potential benefits as long-term uranium contract prices rise, alongside the value created as major development projects approach production.

Paladin Energy (16.9%)

Figure 8: Paladin Energy share price (AUD)

Paladin Energy (www.paladinenergy.com.au), an Australian uranium producer, is GCL’s second-largest holding at 16.9% of gross assets at September 2026. It owns 75% of Namibia’s Langer Heinrich Mine, its main operating asset. The mine restarted production in 2024 and completed its operational ramp-up in June 2026, though its latest quarterly results showed continuing operational challenges.

Langer Heinrich produced 1.00 million lbs of U3O8 in the September quarter, down from 1.23 million lbs the previous quarter following planned maintenance and lower processing recoveries linked to the mining sequence. Production costs rose from $51.6/lb to $61.6/lb, while the average selling price increased from $70.6/lb to $79.4/lb, helped by higher uranium prices and more market-linked sales. Paladin expects higher-grade ore to improve production, particularly in the second half of the 2027 financial year. Full-year guidance remains 5.1–5.6 million lbs, with a production cost target of $44–48/lb.

Paladin’s wholly-owned Patterson Lake South (PLS) project in Saskatchewan, Canada, acquired through its 2024 Fission Uranium takeover, offers substantial development potential. It received provincial environmental approval in February 2026 and has reached further regulatory milestones. An agreement with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is targeting construction licence hearings by the end of 2027, while a benefits agreement with the Birch Narrows Dene Nation advances Indigenous support. Drilling has extended mineralisation at the emerging Atlas and Saloon East discoveries, suggesting further resource growth potential. Once developed, PLS is expected to produce around 9 million lbs of U3O8 annually, potentially making Paladin a significant producer across two major uranium jurisdictions.

Ur-Energy (13.9%)

Figure 9: Ur-Energy share price (CAD)

Ur-Energy (www.ur-energy.com), a longstanding GCL holding, produces uranium using low-cost in-situ recovery in Wyoming. Its second mine, Shirley Basin, began production in April 2026 and shipped its first uranium to the company’s Lost Creek processing facility in August. This made Ur-Energy a two-mine producer, with combined licensed annual production and processing capacity of 4.2 million lbs of U3O8.

Lost Creek’s output continues to rise. Uranium processed and packaged rose 47% to around 141,000 lbs in the second quarter of 2026, its highest quarterly output since production began increasing again in 2022. However, fine particles from the ore-bearing formation have restricted processing flows, slowing progress. Ur-Energy has added filtration equipment and is building a wastewater treatment facility, expected to open in early 2027, to support further production growth.

Shirley Basin sends uranium to Lost Creek for final processing, reducing duplicate infrastructure and potentially improving capital efficiency as production grows. A $120m convertible bond issue in December 2025 strengthened Ur-Energy’s finances and funded its expansion plans. With two operating mines and further development opportunities in Wyoming, Ur-Energy gives GCL exposure to growing US uranium production as energy security and domestic nuclear fuel supply chains become increasingly important policy priorities.

Cameco (7.4%)

Figure 10: Cameco share price (CAD)

Cameco (www.cameco.com), one of the world’s largest publicly traded uranium companies, has historically had a much smaller weighting in GCL than in the Global X Uranium ETF, which held 23.3% at 20 October. It represented 7.8% of GCL’s gross assets at end-August 2026, reflecting managers’ preference for smaller producers and developers with greater exposure to rising uranium prices.

This mainly reflects Cameco’s long-term contracts. At 30 June 2026, it had committed to deliver around 28 million lbs of U3O8 annually on average over 2026–2030, with higher volumes in earlier years. These agreements make revenue more predictable and protect against weaker uranium prices, but limit the benefit from further price rises, as Figure 11 shows.

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

Cameco nevertheless remains an important holding given its asset quality and scale. Operations include Cigar Lake and McArthur River/Key Lake in Canada’s Athabasca Basin, among the world’s highest-grade uranium deposits, and interests in Kazakhstan. It expects attributable uranium production of 19.5–21.5 million lbs in 2026. Its fuel services and 49% Westinghouse stake provide wider nuclear fuel cycle exposure, including reactor technology, servicing and new builds.

Denison Mines (6.5%)

Figure 12: Denison share price (CAD)

Denison Mines (www.denisonmines.com) is a Canadian uranium exploration and development company. Its flagship Phoenix project in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin received final regulatory approval in February 2026 and moved to full-scale construction in July. Using in-situ recovery (ISR) technology, construction should take about two years, with first production targeted for mid-2028. Phoenix would be one of few sizeable new uranium sources entering production before the decade ends.

Initial construction costs are estimated at C$600m, revised upwards in January 2026 for inflation, design changes and updated procurement costs. Despite this, Denison says the project remains financially attractive, supported by stronger long-term uranium prices. Sales of its physical uranium holdings are helping fund construction, with 750,000 lbs of U3O8 sold for C$91.6m in the second quarter.

Phoenix is part of Denison’s wider Wheeler River project, in which it holds an effective 95% interest. Wheeler River also includes the high-grade Gryphon deposit, offering a potential second development phase. Interests in the McClean Lake uranium operations and Waterbury Lake provide further production and development opportunities across the Athabasca Basin.

Performance

GCL’s NAV more than doubled in the 12 months to 31 March 2026, then fell almost 30% by the end of September. Uranium shares have been volatile despite generally supportive conditions. Their growing association with AI-driven power demand meant selling spread to nuclear investments when technology shares weakened over the summer, amid concerns about major tech companies’ ability to finance AI infrastructure.

Higher interest rates and crowded nuclear investments have added to volatility. Investor sentiment remains a key driver of short-term performance, although long-term uranium contracts, government support for nuclear power and the outlook for future supply remain encouraging.

Figure 13: GCL share price and NAV versus the Global X Uranium ETF – rebased to 100 over five years to 30 September 2026

Figure 14: Cumulative total return performance over periods ending 30 September 2026

Peer group

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

GCL is one of eight members of the AIC’s commodities and natural resources sector. Our peer analysis excludes Global Resources Investment Trust (GRIT) because of its size and Riverstone Energy because it is undergoing a managed wind-down.

None is a perfect comparator: GCL is the only fund investing in listed uranium shares. We have added Yellow Cake Plc (YCA) to the peer group, but it holds physical uranium, offering direct exposure to the uranium price.

Figure 15: Peer group cumulative NAV total return performance to 30 September 2026

Figures 15 and 16 show how uranium share price volatility has affected GCL’s performance, though specialist funds focused on other commodities or mining sectors are imperfect peers. Relatively stable uranium prices have helped YCA avoid much of the volatility affecting uranium producers and developers. However, mining shares can offer greater upside when uranium prices rise and investor sentiment improves.

Figure 16: Peer group cumulative share price total return performance to 30 September 2026

Figure 17 shows GCL’s ongoing charges ratio ranks near the bottom of its peer group, reflecting its relatively small size. This does not reflect the management fee reduction. GCL has the group’s highest net gearing that it benefits when uranium performs well but suffers disproportionately if not. The new managers plan to reduce borrowing to manage portfolio risk.

GCL is the more expensive uranium fund but has a much longer track record.

Figure 17: Peer group comparison – size, fees, discount, yield and gearing at 20 October 2026

Premium/(discount)

GCL’s average discount over 12 months is 10.4%

Over the past year, GCL’s discount averaged 10.4%, ranging from 2.1% to 19.8%, making it cheaper than its five-year average discount of 8.8%. On 20 October 2026, its discount was 5.4%.

Figure 18: GCL premium/(discount) over five years

Fund profile

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

GCL aims to deliver attractive returns, mainly through capital growth, by investing in companies involved in energy exploration, development and production, and related services. It focuses on uranium, but can invest up to 30% of assets in other resource-related companies to diversify beyond this highly concentrated sector.

GCL has no formal benchmark and does not aim to outperform an index. Instead, managers focus on generating returns in their own right, selecting investments they believe offer the best long-term returns relative to risk. While they see uranium benefiting from long-term growth trends, they focus on investments they consider undervalued. They expect the market to recognise this value over time, offering capital growth beyond market expectations.

GCL invests globally, mainly in equities, with a bias towards companies listed in North America and Australia. The portfolio is predominantly invested in equities, but may also invest in convertible securities, fixed-income securities and warrants, among other assets.

Investment manager

New City Investment Managers (NCIM) has managed GCL since its July 2006 launch and joined CQS, a global manager running several investment strategies, on 1 October 2007. Manulife Investment Management acquired CQS in November 2023. Portfolio management is sub-delegated to Manulife’s Toronto team, led by Diana Racanelli, supported by Craig Bethune and analyst Olivia Chamie. The revised agreement cut the annual management fee from 1.3875% to 1.00% of NAV, strengthened termination protections and increased marketing support.

No formal benchmark index

This note includes comparisons against the Global X Uranium ETF.

GCL has no formal benchmark, reflecting its specialist focus and limited investment universe. This note uses the Global X Uranium ETF (URA) as a comparator. This large, readily traded fund has net assets of around US$4.92bn and invests across uranium mining and nuclear components, including extraction, refining, exploration and equipment manufacturing. It aims to match broadly the price and yield performance of the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index before fees and expenses.

Previous publications

You can read previous GCL notes by clicking on the links below.

Figure 19: QuotedData’s previously published notes on GCL

SWOT analysis

Bull vs bear case

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Marten & Co (which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority) was paid to produce this note on Geiger Counter Limited. This note is for information purposes only and is not intended to encourage the reader to deal in the security or securities mentioned within it. Marten & Co is not authorised to give advice to retail clients. The research does not have regard to the specific investment objectives financial situation and needs of any specific person who may receive it. 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.