Acro Group: What Really Sits At The Parent Against Series A And B
On the consolidated balance sheet Acro looks asset-rich and deep, but against Series A and B the real test sits at the parent: NIS 292.9 million of solo cash, NIS 241.5 million of current bond maturities, and continued reliance on upstreaming, credit lines, and refinancing.
What Actually Sits At The Parent
The main article argued that Acro's real gap sits between consolidated strength and parent-level flexibility. This follow-up isolates only that layer. Not the backlog, not the merger, and not the headline asset base, but the narrower question that matters to the bonds: what really sits at the parent company against Series A and B.
The first number that matters is NIS 299.2 million of solo current assets at December 31, 2025. Almost all of it is cash and cash equivalents, NIS 292.9 million. The rest of the current layer is just NIS 6.3 million of receivables. In other words, there is barely any middle layer between the cash box and the debt. Once you step out of cash, you jump straight into a different layer altogether: NIS 2.535 billion that represents, in solo terms, the net amount attributable to the parent in its held entities. That is a value layer. It is not a liquidity layer.
On the other side of the balance sheet sit NIS 241.5 million of current bond liabilities and another NIS 560.5 million of non-current bonds. Put differently, the solo balance sheet says something very sharp: the parent has NIS 2.0005 billion of equity, but against the bonds it is leaning first on NIS 292.9 million of cash, not on that equity base. That is the core of the issue.
It is also worth being precise about the accounting language. The solo balance sheet shows NIS 241.5 million of current bond liabilities, but the principal schedule for Series A points to NIS 245 million due in December 2026. The gap is small, but it is a useful reminder: bonds are repaid by nominal principal, not by their carrying amount in the books. The same logic applies to total debt. The balance sheet shows roughly NIS 802.0 million of bonds, while the remaining nominal principal after year-end 2025 is NIS 810 million.
| Layer | 31.12.2025 | What it really means |
|---|---|---|
| Solo current assets | NIS 299.2 million | Almost all of it is cash |
| Cash and cash equivalents | NIS 292.9 million | Immediate parent-level cushion |
| Receivables and other balances | NIS 6.3 million | Minimal liquid middle layer |
| Current bond liabilities | NIS 241.5 million | Most of the 2026 test on the books |
| Total solo bond liabilities | NIS 802.0 million | Parent-level book debt |
| Held-entity value layer | NIS 2,535.0 million | Value below the parent, not cash at the parent |
That chart shows why the consolidated read can mislead. At the parent, almost the entire current asset base is cash, and almost the entire 2026 test sits against that cash. What is left after the near-term bond layer is a relatively narrow buffer, before corporate overhead, interest, taxes, or any fresh funding that may still need to move downward.
How 2025 Cash Was Built
This needs to be read through an all-in parent cash flexibility lens, not through a normalized cash-generation lens. The question here is not theoretical earning power. It is how much money is really left after actual uses at the layer that services the bonds.
From that angle, 2025 was a financing year, not a harvesting year. On a solo basis the parent generated just NIS 5.8 million from operating activity before tax, and after NIS 7.5 million of taxes paid, operating cash flow fell to negative NIS 1.7 million. Investing cash flow was another negative NIS 117.3 million, almost entirely because the parent advanced a net NIS 122.6 million of loans to held entities, partly offset by NIS 5.3 million of interest received. In other words, cash did not move up from the subsidiaries. It moved down from the parent.
The cash that rebuilt the box came from financing. Series B brought in NIS 247.4 million, the equity issuance added another NIS 99.4 million, and against that the company paid NIS 70 million of bond principal, NIS 34.3 million of interest, and NIS 4 million of dividends. That is why year-end cash rose from NIS 173.5 million to NIS 292.9 million. Series B bought time and liquidity. It did not prove that the parent is self-funding off an existing internal cash stream.
The important point is not only that the cash balance grew. It is why it grew. The increase did not come from free cash generation at the parent, but from a combination of fresh bond funding and fresh equity while the parent kept sending money down into the operating layers.
Where Value Gets Stuck On The Way Up
The sharpest number in Acro's solo statements is the gap between accounting profit that moves upward and cash that moves upward. In 2025 the parent booked NIS 89.0 million as its share in profits of held entities. On the surface that looks like proof that the layer below is working. But in the same year the parent was still funding that layer.
Against Acro Magurim, the parent advanced NIS 652.0 million of loans during 2025 and received NIS 551.3 million back, so the net flow was about NIS 100.7 million downwards. Against Acro Nechasim, the parent advanced NIS 146.8 million and received NIS 110.9 million back, so another NIS 35.9 million moved downward on a net basis. By year-end, outstanding loan balances stood at NIS 620.6 million to Acro Magurim and NIS 300.6 million to Acro Nechasim.
| Major entity | Loans advanced by the parent in 2025 | Repayments received in 2025 | Net flow from the parent downward | Closing loan balance at 31.12.2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acro Magurim | NIS 652.0 million | NIS 551.3 million | NIS 100.7 million | NIS 620.6 million |
| Acro Nechasim | NIS 146.8 million | NIS 110.9 million | NIS 35.9 million | NIS 300.6 million |
| Combined for the two main layers | NIS 798.8 million | NIS 662.2 million | NIS 136.6 million | NIS 921.2 million |
This is exactly where shareholder value can get trapped. Projects, income-producing assets, and accounting profits can all look strong inside the subsidiaries, but until surplus cash is released, assets are sold, or intercompany loans come back up, that value does not automatically become parent liquidity.
That is why anyone reading Series A and B through the lens of NIS 5.286 billion of future gross profit or through the lens of NIS 2.463 billion of consolidated equity is looking one layer too low. The more relevant question is much narrower: how much of that value can actually move up in time to the issuer of the bonds.
What This Means For Series A And B
This is also where the real difference between the two series shows up. Series B improved duration. Its principal starts only in December 2028 at NIS 25 million, then NIS 50 million, NIS 50 million, NIS 50 million, and NIS 75 million through 2032. But Series A remains the real liquidity test. After the NIS 70 million already repaid in 2025, the remaining principal in Series A is NIS 245 million in December 2026 and NIS 315 million in December 2027.
That schedule shows what the balance sheet alone can hide. Series B bought a bridge, but it did not erase the Series A wall. In other words, 2025 solved part of the timing problem, not the whole problem.
The rating report is useful for exactly that reason. On January 15, 2026, Midroog kept both series at A3.il stable, but described liquidity as merely reasonable against the 2026 to 2027 maturity burden, not wide. Its five-quarter sources-and-uses bridge from September 30, 2025 was not based only on existing cash. It also included NIS 280 million of unused solo credit lines, NIS 50 to 60 million of asset-sale proceeds, and NIS 42 million expected from the Phoenix partnership. So even in a relatively supportive external case, the path through the bond calendar depends on more than the cash already sitting at the parent.
That does not mean the company is at the edge. As of December 31, 2025, it can meet the next bond layer on paper. But the cushion after that layer is narrow, and the next wall is still open. If the subsidiaries keep absorbing parent funding, or if cash release from below takes longer, the discussion moves very quickly from “there is a lot of value in the group” to “how much of that value is actually reachable in time.”
Bottom Line
The thesis of this follow-up is simple: Acro has a lot of value below the parent, but much less flexibility right above it. Year-end 2025 does not show an immediate squeeze, but it also does not show excess cash that neutralizes the bond calendar. Anyone reading the higher cash balance without unpacking its sources misses that Series B and the equity issuance refilled the box while the parent itself kept funding the subsidiaries.
For bondholders, that means the real protection is not just the size of the consolidated balance sheet but the ability of the operating layer to send cash upward on time. For shareholders, it means the gap between economic value and accessible value is still there. Until loan repayments, surplus release, asset monetizations, or broader parent-level financial flexibility actually show up, part of the value will keep looking large in the statements and much narrower in the cash box.
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.