Arad: What U.S. Tariffs and BABA Compliance Could Really Cost
North America still generates nearly half of Arad's gross profit, so tariffs and BABA are no longer side regulatory issues but a profit-quality test. The filing shows tariffs are already compressing margins, while the full cost of supplier changes, U.S. manufacturing, and BABA compliance is still unresolved.
What This Follow-Up Is Isolating
The main article argued that Arad no longer depends only on the U.S. to grow, but it still depends on the U.S. to protect earnings quality. This continuation isolates the variable that can change the 2026 read very quickly: how much of the tariff burden can be passed through, how much it will cost to rework suppliers and subcontractors, and whether the company's existing U.S. footprint is enough for a BABA world.
If the reader is looking for one clean number, the filing does not provide it. The company explicitly says it cannot estimate the cost of establishing a BABA-compliant product line, and it also cannot estimate the future regulatory path on tariffs. So the right question is not what the exact dollar hit will be. The right question is where the damage is already showing up, what the company is doing to contain it, and how large the profit pool is that still depends on getting the U.S. answer right.
This is not a side issue tied to a marginal region. Even after a weaker year, North America still generated $169.5 million of revenue, $61.8 million of gross profit, and $30.8 million of segment operating profit before unallocated expenses in 2025. That means even if direct exposure to federally funded projects or tariff-bearing imports is smaller than total North America sales, the U.S. variable still sits under too much of group earnings quality to be treated as a footnote.
Where the Profit at Risk Actually Sits
The precise way to read the U.S. issue is to start with a region that has already stopped being the growth engine, but has not stopped being the profit engine. In 2025 North America fell to 40.3% of group revenue, yet it still produced 48.5% of gross profit and 49.6% of segment operating profit before unallocated expenses. That is exactly why tariffs and BABA matter far more than the region's revenue weight would suggest.
| North America metric | 2024 | 2025 | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $173.6 million | $169.5 million | The region is no longer driving growth |
| Gross profit | $66.3 million | $61.8 million | It is still the largest profit pool in the group |
| Segment operating profit before unallocated expenses | $35.5 million | $30.8 million | The decline is sharper than the revenue change |
| Gross margin | 38.2% | 36.5% | Tariffs are already visible in the margin |
| Segment operating margin | 20.5% | 18.2% | The pressure extends below gross profit |
The company also leaves little room for interpretation on direction. In the board report it says gross margin and operating profit were negatively affected by higher expenses caused by U.S. tariff charges. That matters because it means tariffs are no longer a theoretical risk. They are already embedded in 2025 margin compression, especially in the deterioration of North American earnings quality.
The Timeline: Tariffs First, BABA Next
The filing describes two different layers of pressure, and they are easy to blur together. Tariffs are already acting on earnings. BABA is still mostly a preparation clock, but a clock with a clear activation date.
| Date | What changed | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| April 2025 | A 10% tariff was imposed on most goods the company exported to the U.S. | The earnings hit starts inside 2025 |
| August 1, 2025 | An update set the tariff rate on imports from Israel at 15% | The harsher scenario already appeared during the year |
| February 2026 | After the tariff reform was cancelled, a new executive order imposed a 10% tariff for 150 days, subject to Congress for continuation | The cost environment remains temporary and unsettled |
| December 20, 2024 to December 19, 2026 | Full BABA waiver for all AMI water meter components | There is no full compliance cliff yet |
| December 20, 2026 to December 19, 2027 | Partial waiver only, the water meter body must comply with BABA while other components remain exempt | This is when the real product-compliance test begins |
The key nuance is that the company is not presenting BABA as something that blocks sales immediately. The full waiver still gives it time until December 19, 2026. That makes 2026 mainly a preparation year: reworking suppliers, testing the manufacturing footprint, and learning how much of the cost can be pushed through. The problem is that this preparation is happening while tariffs are already weighing on current margins.
That grace period also makes the issue easy to understate. That would be a mistake. Once the third waiver year starts, the meter body has to comply. That is exactly where Arad's supply chain becomes a core economic issue rather than a technical one.
What the Company Is Already Doing, and What Is Still Open
Pricing
The first response is already clear: the company updated prices for its U.S. customers in order to offset part of the extra tariff cost. The key word is part. The filing does not say tariffs were fully passed through. It says a partial offset mechanism was used. So from the outset, some portion of the cost is already staying inside the margin.
Suppliers and Subcontractors
The second response is a change in production and sourcing architecture. The company says it expanded the activity of subcontractors during 2025, mainly for electronic products, in Israel and Europe. At the same time it is expanding the use of production sites in Mexico, Italy, and Spain, including site adjustments and new production lines. That may shorten and improve the supply chain, but it is not the same thing as U.S. compliance.
Another detail matters here. Under the financial instruments note, most water meter bodies are sourced from suppliers in China, India, and Mexico. That explains why future BABA compliance is not just a labeling exercise. If the meter body must satisfy U.S. origin requirements from December 20, 2026, and the current base is mostly non-U.S. sourcing, then the gap is operational, not administrative.
U.S. Manufacturing
The third response is the option to move part of production to the United States. Here the picture is more nuanced than it first looks. On the one hand, Arad already has an industrial foothold in the U.S. through Master Meter, which performs final assembly, testing, and marketing from its Texas plant. So this is not a zero-to-one move into America.
On the other hand, that footprint is not yet the same as a fully localized U.S. product line. Master Meter assembles products from parts purchased from group companies, while the company itself says it is studying the implications of changing suppliers and establishing a production setup for products that will comply with BABA. In other words, the real requirement is not simply to enlarge an existing site. It is to decide which parts of the chain need to become American, on what timetable, and at what cost.
One more point should not be skipped. The disclosure contains no economics. In Note 38 the company says it is examining the possibility of moving part of production to the U.S. based on economic feasibility, but it does not provide a CAPEX framework, a timeline, or an operating target. It should therefore be read as an open option, not as a formed plan.
So What Could This Really Cost
The filing does not allow a single clean estimate. It does allow the issue to be broken into three cost layers.
The first layer is cost that is already inside earnings. Tariffs already contributed to the erosion in gross profitability and operating profit in 2025. Anyone waiting for proof that the pain has started is waiting for something that has already happened.
The second layer is the partial-offset gap. The company has already raised prices in the U.S., but only to offset part of the burden. That means the live question is not whether there is a hit. It is how much of the hit remains inside margin even after the commercial response.
The third layer is the BABA preparation bill. That cost is still unmeasured, but the filing shows where it is likely to come from: supplier changes, subcontractor adjustment, partially or more fully localized U.S. manufacturing, and potentially higher component costs. This is also the layer most likely to be misread if treated too simplistically, because the economics are not yet closed.
| What is known | What is still missing |
|---|---|
| Tariffs already compressed profitability in 2025 | There is no disclosed annual dollar burden from tariffs |
| U.S. price updates offset only part of the cost | There is no disclosure of how much was passed through versus absorbed |
| The company is studying supplier and subcontractor changes | There is no target supplier architecture disclosed for compliance |
| The company is studying moving part of production to the U.S. | There is no investment framework, timeline, or operating target |
| Full waiver runs until December 19, 2026, then the meter body must comply | There is no disclosure of what share of U.S. sales is tied to federally funded projects |
That also defines the analytical limit. It would be wrong to multiply the tariff rate by all North America sales and call that the cost. It would also be wrong to treat all U.S. sales as if they will all become BABA-exposed at once. The filing does not give the two critical variables needed for that: what share of sales is tied to tariff-bearing imported goods, and what share of sales is tied to federally funded infrastructure projects. So the precise estimate is missing.
Even without it, the center of risk is clear. Any failure in this transition sits under a region that still produced $61.8 million of gross profit and $30.8 million of segment operating profit in 2025. So even if direct exposure is smaller than total U.S. business, it still touches a large enough profit pool to determine whether 2026 looks like stabilization or another year of erosion.
What Needs to Happen by the End of 2026
First checkpoint: North American profitability has to stop deteriorating. That is the earliest test, before the market even gets a full BABA answer.
Second checkpoint: The company has to move from studying the issue to describing a clearer operating decision. As long as U.S. manufacturing, supplier architecture, and compliance cost remain at the level of examination, the story stays too open-ended.
Third checkpoint: Investors need to see whether the existing U.S. footprint is actually deepening, or whether the company is trying to solve the issue mainly through supply shifts outside the U.S. Both can have logic, but only one directly addresses the U.S.-origin requirement that starts to matter in the partial-BABA year.
Fourth checkpoint: The market needs to understand whether the U.S. price update was a one-time reaction or a new pricing base that can hold even if tariff policy stays unstable.
Bottom Line
The conclusion from the filing is not that Arad faces a U.S. regulatory black hole. The sharper conclusion is that tariffs are already hurting margin, BABA has a clearly defined wake-up date in December 2026, and the company still has not disclosed the two numbers that will determine the size of the bill: how much cost remains absorbed and how much compliance will cost.
So the real cost here is not just the tariff line. It is a three-part bill: immediate margin compression, the investment required for compliance, and potentially the cost of choosing between a more expensive U.S. manufacturing base and a global supply chain that may not fully satisfy future rules. As long as North America still generates almost half of group gross profit, that is not a local issue. It is one of Arad's core earnings questions for 2026.
Disclosure: Deep TASE analyses are general informational, research, and commentary content only. They do not constitute investment advice, investment marketing, a recommendation, or an offer to buy, sell, or hold any security, and are not tailored to any reader's personal circumstances.
The author, site owner, or related parties may hold, buy, sell, or otherwise trade securities or financial instruments related to the companies discussed, before or after publication, without prior notice and without any obligation to update the analysis. Publication of an analysis should not be read as a statement that any position does or does not exist.
The analysis may contain errors, omissions, or information that changes after publication. Readers should review official filings and primary sources before making decisions.