SR Accord: How Wide Is the Funding Safety Margin, Really?
In December 2025, SR Accord expanded two bank lines by a combined ILS 400 million, while the bond rating stabilized at A3.il with a stable outlook. But the funding cushion widened mainly in capacity, not in duration: most of the debt stack still sits in short, prime-linked bank funding.
What This Follow-up Is Isolating
The main article already argued that growth returned, but that SR Accord's real test shifted to collateral, collections, and funding. This follow-up isolates the narrower question: did late 2025 genuinely create a thicker funding cushion, or did it mostly enlarge the credit lines the company already depends on.
The short answer is that the safety margin widened, but it widened sideways rather than outward in time. At the end of December 2025, two bank facilities were enlarged by a combined ILS 400 million, taking the group's total bank facilities to ILS 1.75 billion and total available non-equity funding sources to roughly ILS 2.0 billion. At the same time, unused bank lines still stood at about ILS 508.9 million at year-end and roughly ILS 540 million near the report date.
That is still not the same thing as longer-dated funding. As of 31 December 2025, about ILS 1.191 billion of bank debt sat entirely inside a contractual window of up to six months. Even the stabilized rating did not change that. Midroog did affirm the company and its bond series at A3.il in May 2025 and changed the outlook from negative to stable, but from 1 January 2026 until near the publication date no additional credit was raised. In other words, the company bought itself more air, not necessarily more time.
That chart matters because it shows what actually improved. The company did not open a new equity layer and it did not materially extend liability duration. It enlarged existing credit lines, mainly with Bank A and Bank D, and that widened immediate room to maneuver.
Where The Margin Really Widened
The immediate reports from 24 and 25 December 2025 are the core of the story. In the first, the facility from Bank D doubled from ILS 200 million to ILS 400 million, with no change to the financing terms. One day later, Bank A increased its line from ILS 450 million to ILS 650 million, also without changing terms. The immediate effect was a ILS 400 million jump in funding capacity within two days.
The numbers organize the picture better than the headline:
| Funding layer | Facility size | Drawn at 31 Dec 2025 | Drawn near publication | Main pricing | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bank A at the company | ILS 650 million | ILS 450 million | ILS 426 million | Prime to prime minus 0.4% | This is the largest line, and it remains short |
| Bank B at the company | ILS 250 million | ILS 118 million | ILS 76.5 million | Prime to prime minus 0.4% | A line with relatively comfortable year-end spare room |
| Bank C at the company | ILS 350 million | ILS 322 million | ILS 298 million | Prime minus 0.5% to prime minus 0.1% | A nearly full line, so less flexible in practice |
| Bank D at the company | ILS 400 million | ILS 300 million | ILS 314.5 million | Prime minus 0.5% to prime minus 0.1% | The line that doubled in late December and opened the room |
| Bank A at Arno A.A. | ILS 100 million | ILS 50 million | ILS 95 million | Prime plus 1.0% to 1.8% | A more expensive layer dedicated to the development activity |
That table sharpens three points. First, the new room is overwhelmingly bank-driven. Second, it sits mostly on prime-linked facilities rather than on fixed or unsecured term debt. Third, Arno's activity is funded at a higher spread than the core business, so the quality of flexibility is not uniform across the group even when headline liquidity looks better.
The rating matters too, but it needs proportion. The move from a negative outlook to a stable outlook in May 2025 helps frame the capital structure as less strained, and that matters both for bondholders and for the banks. Even so, this was not a rating upgrade. The company and the bonds remained at A3.il. So the development was stabilization, not a shift into a different funding tier.
There is also a small detail with large meaning. The bond deeds allow payouts of up to 70% of annual profit only if the rating rises to A2 or above. At A3.il with a stable outlook, that door is still closed. So the stable rating improved the tone, but it did not move the company into a looser capital-allocation bracket.
Why This Is Still A Liquidity Margin, Not A Time Margin
The main reason is the maturity profile. As of 31 December 2025, the contractual cash flow of bank credit was about ILS 1.1916 billion within six months, with no bank layer extending beyond that. By contrast, the two bond series provide some duration, but on a much smaller base: about ILS 35.1 million from Series B and ILS 12.9 million from Series G fall within six months, with the rest spread further out.
That is the critical point. Late 2025 widened funding capacity, but it also left the mix effectively shorter. During 2025, bank credit rose by about ILS 420.5 million, and at the same time roughly ILS 77.6 million of bonds were repaid, taking the bond liability balance down to about ILS 212.1 million from ILS 279.0 million at the end of 2024. The funding structure therefore became more flexible in volume, but more bank-heavy, shorter, and more dependent on rollover.
Prime sensitivity shows the point better than any generic wording. At the group level, a 1% increase in the prime rate would have reduced pre-tax profit by roughly ILS 10.1 million and equity by about ILS 7.8 million. One year earlier, the same sensitivity stood at roughly ILS 5.6 million on pre-tax profit and ILS 4.3 million on equity. So the liquidity cushion got larger, but the balance sheet's exposure to the price of money almost doubled.
So the right interpretation is not that the company solved its funding question. It improved its starting position. If the cost of money falls or if the company keeps repricing customer business effectively, this bank-heavy structure will work in its favor. If not, the same structure can turn against it much faster.
The Covenants Look Comfortable, But There Is One Important Asterisk
The good news is that year-end headroom looks comfortable across almost every layer that is explicitly tested:
| Layer | Metric | Actual at 31 Dec 2025 | Required floor | Visible headroom |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company versus the banks | Tangible equity to balance sheet | 24.9% | 20% | 4.9 percentage points |
| Company versus the banks | Tangible equity | ILS 487.3 million | ILS 190 million | ILS 297.3 million |
| Company versus the bonds | Equity-to-balance ratio | 25.8% | 16.0% in Series B and 15.7% in Series G for acceleration | Nearly 10 percentage points above acceleration levels |
| Company versus the bonds | Equity | ILS 487.3 million | ILS 240 million | ILS 247.3 million |
| Arno A.A. | Tangible equity to balance sheet | 50.3% | 35% | 15.3 percentage points |
| Arno A.A. | Tangible equity | ILS 92.5 million | ILS 45 million | ILS 47.5 million |
| Arno A.A. | Bad-debt expense ratio | 0.09% | 2% | Very wide margin |
The pledged-check side also looks comfortable in the lines that were measured at year-end. At Bank A, the check-to-credit ratio stood at about 144% against a 120% requirement. At Bank B it was roughly 220.5%, and at Bank C about 132%. There is no obvious edge-of-covenant feel here.
But the important asterisk sits exactly on the line that expanded the fastest. In the compliance table, the company says that with respect to Bank D, because of the timing of the agreement and the added credit from 31 December 2025, testing for the added tranche will only be performed after the period agreed with the bank. That is not a breach, but it is a reminder that the year-end bottom line includes room that was not fully tested on that same date.
In other words, the covenants are comfortable, but part of the late-December jump still benefits from timing. Anyone reading the new facility as fully equivalent to a long-established tested line is moving too fast.
Bottom Line
SR Accord's funding safety margin is genuinely wider at the end of 2025 than it was a year earlier. Bank lines are larger, undrawn balances remain material, the rating has stabilized, and the covenants look comfortably clear. That is a real cushion.
But it is still a cushion built mainly on rolling liquidity. Most bank debt remains short, sensitivity to prime has risen materially, and the bond layer, which is the more natural source of time, actually shrank during the year. So the answer to the title question is that the margin is wider, but still not especially deep.
Over the next 2 to 4 quarters, three checkpoints will determine whether this margin is truly getting stronger:
- Whether undrawn balances remain material even if the credit book keeps growing.
- Whether capital ratios and covenants stay comfortable after ongoing growth and ordinary capital allocation.
- Whether the company adds a more durable funding layer over time, or keeps relying overwhelmingly on short, prime-linked bank lines.
If those answers are positive, late 2025 will look in hindsight like a real strengthening of the capital structure. If not, the improvement will prove to have been mostly a capacity expansion inside the same old funding model.
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.