Now That Fluor Is Done Selling Its Stake in NuScale Power, Is It Time to Buy the Next-Gen Nuclear Company?

NuScale Power remains the only company with NRC standard design approval for SMRs, and its uprated 77-MWe module was approved in mid-2025, but the stock is still down nearly 80% from its 52-week high after Fluor completed the sale of its entire stake in April. The company has one project in Romania, with final investment decision reached in February and operations targeted for 2033, yet it still lacks additional firm commitments. The article is constructive on the long-term SMR story but emphasizes execution risk, financing concerns, and continued volatility.

Analysis

The market is no longer pricing SMR as a pure narrative call; it is increasingly a financing and execution call. The key second-order issue is that an early strategic seller exiting does not just remove supply — it also removes implicit validation from a cap-table anchor that could have been used to backstop future project financing. That matters because in SMR, equity value is less about reactor design and more about whether the company can repeatedly convert regulatory wins into bankable, project-level commitments without diluting shareholders into the ground.

The next leg is likely binary and time-based. In the near term, the stock can grind higher simply because the overhang is gone and short-interest/retail momentum can reassert itself; over the next 3-6 months, however, the market will refocus on whether the Romania project becomes a template or a one-off. If the company cannot announce additional firm counterparties, the right frame is not TAM expansion but option value decay: every quarter without incremental contracted backlog reduces the probability that today’s valuation can be justified by 2030 cash flows.

The contrarian angle is that the obvious bullish setup may be too crowded at the wrong level of the stack. SMR technology can be strategically important without being the best equity, because the biggest economic leverage may accrue to EPC, grid, fuel-cycle, and nuclear services suppliers that get paid earlier and with less regulatory/financing risk. In other words, the market may be paying venture-style multiples for infrastructure-like outcomes, while the true asymmetric exposure sits in names that monetize the buildout regardless of which reactor platform wins.

FLR’s exit is mildly negative for SMR but potentially positive for FLR, because it removes mark-to-market noise and capital tied up in a long-dated venture position. The bigger signal is that insiders and sponsors may view the current public valuation as an exit window rather than a compounding opportunity. That is a warning sign for anyone expecting the stock to rerate purely on theme without a steady stream of hard commercial milestones.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Avoid initiating an outright long SMR here; if long, use a 6-12 month call spread instead of stock to capture event-driven upside while capping downside if no new contracts emerge.
• Pair trade: long FLR / short SMR over the next 1-3 months. Thesis: FLR benefits from capital redeployment and reduced headline risk, while SMR remains exposed to financing and execution disappointment.
• For those wanting nuclear exposure, rotate toward the less binary beneficiaries of deployment — consider long positions in EPC/grid/infrastructure names that monetize construction and integration rather than licensing optionality.
• Set a catalyst deadline on SMR for the next 2 quarters: if no additional firm deployments or financing structures are announced, reduce exposure aggressively; the stock is likely to re-rate lower as the market discounts 2030+ cash flows at a higher risk premium.
• For aggressive traders, buy SMR only on post-announcement pullbacks with a tight stop, targeting a 2:1 reward/risk into any new customer or regulatory catalyst; avoid chasing momentum on low-conviction headline strength.