I agree with most of your thinking, although I switched a while ago from URA to URNM. I feel like your explanation of the difference understates the extent that URA is reliant on Cameco (25%) and also doesn't mention that it also invests in general industrial companies not specific to uranium (Mitsubishi, Cheil, Doosan, Hyundai, Itochu, etc).<p>By contrast, URNM (so far as I can tell) is specific to uranium. On the bright side, being diversified helps to stabilize the fund and makes it less dependent on the uranium market. On the other side, if the reason you are investing is because you are bullish on the future of uranium, you are getting a lot of other stuff that has only a loose correlation with increased uranium demand.<p>There's nothing wrong with investing in these other industrial companies, but my thought was that I was better off with a smaller investment in URNM with my diversification happening elsewhere and consciously rather than automatically. I'd suggest you look closely at the holding list of URA to be sure its holdings match your objectives. NLR might also be worth considering instead, although I personally decided I didn't want the small direct China exposure.<p>Edit: To be clear, I have a much smaller percentage in URNM than you have in URA. I agree with you directionally, but lack your boldness.
> SMRs deliver constant....<p>You have this as an advantage but imo this is precisely nuclear's problem. Aside from the intertwined cost equation that goes with varying the power output. You want SMRs specifically made for constantly varying output. Scaling up and down demand is one of the biggest issues our electricity grid faces.<p>It surprises me somewhat that uranium prices are booming. The output of the mines was fine last I checked and there is no big demand increase on the way so speculation should be sufficient to explain this price rise?