RE: Jp Morgan13 Apr 2022 10:11
This part within JPM statement shows a (deliberate?) lack of capital plant Contract knowledge:
"In our view, 'New Markets' offers good long-term sales potential but there is no guarantee of good profits and it might even be loss-making into the 2030s," it said.
I speak specifically towards RR's SMR entry as a utility scale electricity generator and considering the above. Large capital plant Contracts for the 'design, manufacture, site construction and lifetime asset maintenance support' are generally not entered into on a fixed price basis. There are many reasons for this, importantly one of them being to ensure the supplier(s) to the Contract is/are financially protected and are not carrying potentially fatal financial risk; protection typically includes an agreed level of profit generated by suppliers into the Contract; thereby ensuring the supplier does not suffer harm, pushing it out of business; thereby protecting all parties the supplier(s) is/are able to complete all of the works. There is nothing worse for the customer than to have a supplier partner fail during the execution phase, leaving a project in an incomplete and distressed state. This would be a bad outcome for all parties connected with the Contract, ending up with an orphan project potentially incurring massive cost over-runs.
Therefore, this type of large capital plant 'New Business' (specifically SMR), if secured and backed by the gov., could be considered less risky that other parts of the RR portfolio.