Buligo: How Much of the Consolidated Liquidity Is Actually Accessible?
At year-end 2025, Buligo presents $26.8 million of cash and short-term deposits and $34.7 million of current assets on a consolidated basis, but the stand-alone parent shows only $3.201 million of cash. That does not mean group liquidity is weak. It means the real question runs through how much value, fee income and cash receipts can actually move up to the public-company layer.
The main article already framed Buligo’s core issue as a value-access question rather than a value-creation question. This follow-up isolates only the top layer: how much of the liquidity that looks comfortable on a consolidated basis actually sits in the place that matters for dividends, headquarters costs and parent-company flexibility.
The short answer is fairly blunt. Buligo’s consolidated balance sheet is genuinely strong, but the cash box at the top is much tighter. The year-end presentation highlights $26.8 million of cash and short-term deposits, $34.7 million of current assets, $42.4 million of fair-value financial investments and $70.2 million of equity. The stand-alone parent statements look very different: $3.201 million of cash, $5.206 million of current assets, and $65.155 million of investments in held companies.
That does not mean the consolidated cash “does not exist.” It does. It does mean that the $26.8 million should not be read as if it were all waiting at the public-company layer. Part of the liquidity sits lower in the structure, part supports projects, and part is tied to obligations that remain below the shareholder layer.
Strong Consolidated, Thin Stand-Alone
That chart is the heart of the issue. Consolidated cash and short-term deposits are 8.4 times the parent-company cash balance, and consolidated current assets are 6.7 times the stand-alone current assets. At the same time, $65.155 million, almost 90% of the stand-alone asset base, sits in investments in held companies. In other words, most of the shareholder asset value sits below the public-company layer, not as direct cash at the top.
| Layer | 2025, USD m | What it means in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Consolidated cash and short-term deposits | 26.8 | A broad group liquidity picture |
| Consolidated current assets | 34.7 | The comfortable cushion shown in the presentation |
| Stand-alone cash | 3.201 | Cash that is actually close to dividends and HQ needs |
| Stand-alone current assets | 5.206 | A much narrower parent-company buffer |
| Stand-alone investments in held companies | 65.155 | Most of the value sits below the public-company layer |
There is also a small but important disclosure in the notes. In connection with guarantees provided by a subsidiary to project lenders, that subsidiary committed to maintain roughly $3 million of liquidity. That matters because it shows that not all of the group cash is naturally free to move upward. Some of it is required first to support the project layer and its obligations.
This is exactly what the presentation compresses. The presentation is making a fair strength argument: Buligo has high equity, relatively low liabilities and meaningful liquidity. But at the shareholder level the question is not whether assets exist. The question is how much cash is actually accessible after every stop along the way takes its share.
Stand-Alone Profit Is Still Not The Same As Stand-Alone Cash
In the stand-alone statements, the company finished 2025 with total comprehensive income of $5.503 million. That is a good number. But $3.628 million of it came from the company’s share in the profits of held companies. So almost two thirds of the profit at the parent layer came from lower layers of the structure. That is real economic value, but it is still not the same thing as cash that has already arrived upstairs.
The number that sharpens the point is parent-company operating cash flow: $2.563 million. That is only about 46.6% of net profit. The gap does not mean anything is broken. It means the top layer still depends on cash being pushed up through the structure, not just on accounting recognition of profits below.
That chart shows the scale of the cash pipe. In 2025 the company also received $2.087 million of loan repayments from subsidiaries. In the same year it paid a $2 million dividend to its own shareholders. So even before the post-balance-sheet dividend approval, it is already clear that parent-level distributions depend in practice on cash moving up from the layers below.
The investing line completes the picture. At the stand-alone level, 2025 included a $1.499 million increase in investments in held companies and total investing cash outflow of $1.602 million. Put simply, this was not a year in which all cash simply moved upward. Part of it also kept moving back down into the structure.
The Credit Line Buys Flexibility, But It Sits On The Same Value Pipe
This is where the story becomes sharper. The credit line signed in 2024 and expanded in November 2025 to $20 million did improve flexibility. The term was extended to four years and pricing was updated to SOFR plus 2.5%. But the collateral package and covenant language show what exactly the bank is financing.
The pledges include a first-ranking floating charge over most company assets, excluding holdings in some subsidiaries, as well as pledges over the interests in the subsidiaries through which the group invests in projects and over the rights to receive management fees and transaction fees from those subsidiaries. This is not a neutral treasury reserve. It is a facility levered against the exact engine that investors also count on to translate value into shareholder-accessible cash.
The covenants are not a footnote either. Maximum total leverage was set at 3:1, and minimum fixed charge coverage at 1.10:1. That coverage test is calculated against interest, taxes and also dividends or distributions of the company. The implication is straightforward: shareholder distributions are part of the credit equation, not something that sits outside it.
The most important point is that the facility was not merely theoretical. At the financial statement date, a subsidiary had already drawn $10 million, half of the line. By the approval date of the statements, utilization had fallen to $5 million. That is positive because debt came down. But it also means the line was not just a backstop. It was in use, and the parent-company cash box had not replaced it.
The Distribution Policy Looks Comfortable Only If You Ignore The Top Layer
After the reporting period, on March 22, 2026, the company approved a $2.5 million dividend. The message is clear: management wants to signal confidence. But that signal has to be read against the stand-alone cash balance. At year-end 2025, the parent itself held only $3.201 million of cash and cash equivalents.
That chart is an illustrative arithmetic bridge, not a statement of actual cash after the balance sheet date. But it does clarify the scale: the dividend approved in March 2026 equals about 78% of stand-alone year-end cash. So the question here is not whether Buligo “can” pay. It can. The real question is where the cushion at the top gets rebuilt from after the payout.
Once those facts are put together, the picture becomes clearer:
- The consolidated balance sheet shows a comfortable group cash position.
- The parent-company layer shows a much smaller direct cash balance.
- The credit line and the distribution policy both use the same pipe of management fees, transaction fees, pledged project holdings and cash receipts from subsidiaries.
This is not a case of immediate stress. It is a case where cash accessibility matters much more than the presentation headline of “high liquidity.”
Bottom Line
The right way to read Buligo is not that the consolidated balance sheet is misleading, and not that the company is under pressure. The right read is that the consolidated balance sheet helps explain group resilience, but on its own it does not answer the shareholder cash question. At the end of 2025, the gap is large: $26.8 million of consolidated cash and short-term deposits versus $3.201 million of cash at the parent-company layer, while both the credit line and the payout policy sit on the same upward pipe of fee rights, project holdings and upstream receipts.
That defines the 2026 test cleanly. It is not enough to see more realizations or more profits in the layers below. The market also needs to see cash actually moving up, credit-line utilization continuing to fall, and a comfortable buffer remaining at the parent even after dividends. Only then will the gap between accounting liquidity and accessible liquidity start to narrow.
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.