AFI Properties 2025: The 2026-2027 refinancing map
The main article identified refinancing as AFI Properties' active bottleneck. This follow-up shows that the issue is not one debt wall but a sequence of execution gates across Landmark, Czech offices, Hod Hasharon, bonds and post-balance-sheet liquidity actions.
The main article already argued that AFI Properties in 2026 would be judged less by fair value and more by lease-up and refinancing. This follow-up isolates only the financing layer. The reason is straightforward: the annual report, the March 2026 presentation, the February rating report, and the late-December and January immediate reports together show a debt map where the real risk is not a collapsing covenant structure but a sequence of financings that has to clear on time.
The non-obvious point is that this is no longer a pure question of whether the company has market access. In December a credit facility was extended. In January a bond series was expanded. In February the rating outlook turned positive. So part of the work is already done. But that does not solve the map. It only changes the read: instead of one theoretical debt wall, the company now faces a series of execution gates that still have to be cleared asset by asset and window by window.
Where The Pressure Really Sits
In the March 2026 presentation AFI shows a debt schedule with ILS 3.644 billion of principal due in 2026 and another ILS 3.280 billion in 2027. That is the first number a reader sees, but the company itself qualifies it: the chart excludes credit facilities, commercial paper and debt on assets under construction. So it is useful for showing the size of the next two years, but not enough to explain where the bottleneck actually sits.
To get the real breakdown, you have to move into the board report. There the company explains why current liabilities rose to ILS 4.217 billion at the end of 2025. The list is very specific:
| Item reclassified to short term | Amount | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Landmark project financing | ILS 1,142 million | This is the largest Israeli bucket and therefore the core refinancing item |
| Several office projects in Czechia | ILS 634 million | A reminder that the pressure is not only in Israel |
| Hod Hasharon office project | ILS 206 million | Smaller, but still part of the same 12-month execution window |
| Bond series 8 and 12 | ILS 1,037 million | The public-market layer already sitting inside current maturities |
| Commercial paper series 5 | ILS 110 million | A reminder that short funding is still part of the map |
This is the core of the follow-up. 2026 is not a year in which AFI only has to solve bonds, or only bank debt, or only one project. It is a timing year. If one of these windows closes on time, pressure drops. If several drag at once, the weight shifts very quickly from the balance sheet into funding cost.
There is another layer here that is easy to miss. In the specific financing table for Landmark A, the loan balance shown as short term already stood at ILS 957.6 million at year-end 2025. At the same time, in the solo working capital note the company refers to about ILS 1.143 billion of Landmark financing due within 12 months. In other words, even inside what looks like one "Landmark" issue, there is more than one financing component. This should not be read as one single line item that disappears in one step.
What Already Moved After The Balance Sheet
The picture changed already between late December and early February, and that is what makes the refinancing map more practical and less theoretical.
The Ness Ziona Facility Was Extended, And Pricing Improved
On December 28, 2025 the company extended for another 24 months the shekel credit framework of up to ILS 580 million at the Science Park project in Ness Ziona. Just as importantly, pricing was updated from prime plus 1% to prime plus 0.5%, or the alternative formula linked to the company's gross bond spread. This does not prove that the entire debt stack has reopened on the same terms. But it does show that local lenders were willing both to extend time and to tighten pricing on a facility backed by a specific asset.
The analytical implication is that the banking market is not merely "willing to talk". It has already given the company more time on an existing framework. In a crowded refinancing map, that is not a technical detail. It is evidence that part of the pressure can be handled through property-level rollovers rather than only through public capital markets.
The Public Market Reopened Quickly And At Scale
On January 14, 2026 the company disclosed that it was examining an expansion of series 17. Five days later it published the results: 49 orders, allocation of ILS 700 million par, and gross immediate proceeds of about ILS 748 million, without underwriting. In the annual report the company adds that the proceeds were mainly used to replace existing financial debt, with the balance intended for project-related payments.
The key point here is not just the amount. It is the sequence. The company did not wait until the refinancing burden sat right at the wall. It opened a window, saw demand, and executed. That reduces the immediate 2026 pressure, but it does not close the map. A corporate bond raise is general oxygen. The real test is still at the asset-level refinancing layer.
The Positive Outlook Gives Credit, But Also A Condition Set
In the February 4, 2026 rating report, S&P Maalot did more than revise the outlook to positive. It also defined the frame inside which the story still has to remain. Its base case assumes that in 2025 to 2027 the company will stay around 59% to 63% adjusted debt to debt-plus-equity, and around 1.5x EBITDA to interest expense. The downside case is framed fairly clearly: around 65% leverage, or EBITDA to interest below 1.3x over time, or failure to keep reducing FX risk.
That matters because the rating is not saying "there is no issue". It is saying there is market access and adequate liquidity as long as the company keeps closing the map without eroding those metrics.
Why Liquidity Looks Reasonable, But Not Free
In the company presentation, year-end 2025 shows ILS 1.73 billion of cash, ILS 905 million of signed credit facilities and ILS 2.772 billion of unencumbered assets. That creates a liquidity base that cannot be ignored. The debt structure itself is also calmer than a generic "heavy debt" headline suggests: 71% of debt is fixed-rate or hedged, and weighted average cost fell to 4.4%.
But this is exactly where the analysis has to slow down. Liquidity is not the same thing as a solved refinancing map. In the rating report, S&P Maalot explains why it views liquidity as adequate: sources over uses above 1.2x in the 12 months beginning September 30, 2025, based on roughly ILS 1.1 billion of cash, roughly ILS 830 million of committed facilities, cash FFO of ILS 400 million to ILS 500 million, Concord sale proceeds, option exercise proceeds, and roughly ILS 750 million from the series 17 issuance.
Against that, it places uses of roughly ILS 2.2 billion of current debt, bonds and commercial paper, about ILS 300 million of capex, and about ILS 494 million for the Port7 acquisition. Then comes the most important line: the calculation does not include one-time bullet payments of non-recourse bank loans, based on the assumption that those loans will be refinanced.
That is the key insight. AFI's liquidity looks adequate partly because the rating model assumes that property-level refinancing will in fact happen. In other words, the refinancing map has not disappeared from the model. It is already embedded in it.
| What supports the map | What still needs to close |
|---|---|
| ILS 1.73 billion of cash at year-end 2025 | Asset-level refinancing in Israel and Europe within a short execution window |
| ILS 905 million of signed credit lines | Czech office debt of ILS 634 million already moved into short term |
| About ILS 748 million of gross bond proceeds in January 2026 | Landmark, still the largest single item in the map |
| Positive rating outlook | Hod Hasharon, current bond maturities and commercial paper living inside the same window |
| 71% fixed or hedged debt and 4.4% average interest cost | Port7 and capex, meaning the company also has cash uses, not only maturities |
Why 2027 Is Already Part Of The 2026 Story
The easiest mistake is to read the January bond raise as if it "solves 2026". The presentation itself contradicts that. Even after 2026, another ILS 3.280 billion comes due in 2027. So the January issuance buys time and flexibility, but it does not erase the year after.
This also explains why a duration of about 2.9 years is important but not fully comforting. It says the portfolio is not built around a single cliff edge. It does not say the next two years are easy. Quite the opposite: it says the company has to use 2026 to improve the starting point for 2027, not merely to survive 2026.
Port7 is a good illustration of the two-sided read. On one hand, it is the acquisition of a fully leased asset that should add existing NOI. On the other hand, from the funding map perspective, it is another use of liquidity and financing capacity in the same window in which debt also has to be refinanced. So the right read on the acquisition is not one-directional. It strengthens the portfolio, but at the same time it increases the execution discipline the company still has to show.
Conclusion
AFI Properties' 2026-2027 refinancing map looks better today than it did exactly at the balance-sheet date. The company has already extended a credit line, already raised bonds, and already received a positive rating outlook. So this is no longer a "if markets close, there is a problem" read. It is a more precise one: the company has bought itself time, and now it has to convert that time into specific financing closures.
The current thesis in one line: AFI Properties' refinancing map looks manageable, but only if 2026 becomes a year of property-level closures and not just a year of general liquidity support.
What changed versus the broader read in the main article is that here the risk is clearly no longer binary. There is real evidence of market access. What has not changed is that the center of gravity remains execution: Landmark, Czech offices, Hod Hasharon, bonds and commercial paper still have to move from short-term classification into longer funding or actual repayment from available sources.
The strongest counter-thesis is that the market may still be too harsh. Under that read, much of the debt that worries investors sits against income-producing assets, part of it is non-recourse, and the company has already shown both bank access and public-market access. If so, 2026 is mostly a technical rolling year rather than a real risk year.
The problem with that counter-thesis is that it assumes the windows keep opening exactly on time. That may well happen. But it is no longer an assumption that can be taken for granted without tracking each financing checkpoint on the calendar.
Why it matters: at this stage AFI Properties is being tested not only on asset quality, but on timing quality.
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.