Brill: How Much Is Really Left After Leases, Interest and Short-Term Credit
The main article already showed that Brill's retail engine looked better in 2025. This follow-up isolates the cash test: NIS 113.1 million of operating cash flow looks healthy, but after leases, interest, the ALDO acquisition and short-term credit reduction, internally generated cash did not really leave room, and the NIS 3.5 million rise in cash relied on NIS 26.0 million of new long-term borrowing.
The main article already argued that Brill's operating picture improved in 2025, but that the benefit still did not flow cleanly to shareholders. This follow-up isolates the exact point where the positive operating read breaks down. NIS 113.1 million of cash flow from operations is a strong number, but it is not the same thing as cash left after leases, interest, the ALDO acquisition and short-term credit reduction.
That is the key distinction. If you look only at operating cash flow, it is easy to conclude that Brill has already rebuilt a comfortable cushion. Once you switch to the full cash picture, the read changes completely. After the year's real cash uses, Brill's internally generated cash was negative by about NIS 22.5 million before new long-term borrowing. The NIS 3.5 million rise in year-end cash did not come only from the business. It also came from NIS 26.0 million of new long-term loans.
- The strong operating cash headline also rests on accounting and working capital. The NIS 7.7 million net loss turned into NIS 113.1 million of operating cash flow because of NIS 96.6 million of non-cash adjustments and NIS 25.2 million of working-capital release, led mainly by a NIS 16.3 million drop in receivables.
- Leases sit at the center of the story, not at the edge. Lease-principal payments alone reached NIS 57.1 million, and together with NIS 25.4 million of interest paid they absorbed 72.9% of operating cash flow.
- Freedom was not really built internally. After investment and acquisition cash, leases, interest, loan repayments and lower short-term credit, Brill did not end up with internal surplus cash. It ended up with a gap of about NIS 22.5 million, closed only through new borrowing.
- This is not an immediate distress read. The company itself remained far from covenant pressure, and S.B.N returned to compliance with an EBITDA-to-debt-service ratio of 2.44 versus a 1.7 threshold. The issue here is shareholder freedom, not an imminent breach.
Two Cash Frames, Two Conclusions
To avoid mixing two very different stories, the cash bridge needs to separate operating cash flow from the full cash picture. Brill does not disclose maintenance versus growth CAPEX, so this analysis does not invent that split. It stays with reported cash uses only.
| Frame | What it includes | 2025 | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating cash | Net cash from operating activities | NIS 113.1 million | The business still generates cash before the heavy financing uses |
| After reported investment cash | Operating cash less NIS 16.6 million of investment and acquisition cash | NIS 96.5 million | Even after this year's investment, the first read still looks comfortable |
| Full cash picture before new borrowing | After lease principal, interest paid, long-term loan repayments and lower short-term credit | (NIS 22.5 million) | This is where it becomes clear that operating improvement has not yet created real room |
| Net change in cash | After NIS 26.0 million of new long-term borrowing | NIS 3.5 million | Cash rose slightly, but not because a wide internal surplus was created |
This chart explains why the first read is misleading. EBITDA rose from NIS 96.5 million to NIS 103.0 million, and operating cash flow stayed above NIS 113 million. At the same time, lease principal climbed to NIS 57.1 million and interest paid rose to NIS 25.4 million. So it is not enough to say that Brill "generates cash." The real question is how much of that cash survives after the fixed uses.
The source of operating cash also matters. NIS 25.2 million came from working-capital movements, including a NIS 16.3 million decline in receivables, a NIS 5.6 million increase in payables and a NIS 3.3 million decline in inventory. In the fourth quarter alone, operating cash flow rose to NIS 50.8 million from NIS 39.5 million, and the improvement was explained mainly by higher payables. That is a material nuance: 2025 operating cash was real, but it was not built only on clean operating earnings.
Where NIS 113.1 Million Really Goes
This is the core of the thesis. After NIS 16.6 million of investment and acquisition cash, Brill still had NIS 96.5 million left. That still looks comfortable. Then the real cash uses arrive and determine whether any actual shareholder freedom was created.
The numbers are sharp. Lease-principal payments of NIS 57.1 million cut almost half of operating cash flow. Interest paid of NIS 25.4 million removed another quarter or so. After those two lines, and before any discussion of bank-debt amortization, only about NIS 14.0 million was left after the year's reported investment cash.
Then the credit side matters as well. Brill repaid NIS 22.4 million of long-term loans in 2025, while short-term credit fell by NIS 14.1 million on a net basis. That is healthy de-risking, but it also explains why operating improvement still did not turn into deployable cash. The business used cash first to reduce financial pressure, not to build a fresh cushion.
That is exactly why the sentence "cash flow is strong" is incomplete. It is true at business level. It is not true at shareholder-freedom level once the full structure has to be paid for.
Leases Are Now the Center of the Story
If there is one factor that separates store-level improvement from shareholder-level improvement, it is leases. In 2025, net finance expense rose 39.1% to NIS 32.2 million. Inside that line, lease interest reached NIS 13.6 million, more than the NIS 11.5 million of interest on bank credit and loans. At the same time, lease principal already reached NIS 57.1 million.
| Financing component | 2024 | 2025 | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lease interest | NIS 11.1 million | NIS 13.6 million | The leased-store model weighs on the P&L as well |
| Interest on credit and loans | NIS 12.0 million | NIS 11.5 million | Bank interest did not disappear, but it is no longer the only burden |
| Net FX loss | NIS 0.3 million | NIS 6.0 million | Currency added pressure to the finance line in 2025 |
| Lease principal paid | NIS 52.9 million | NIS 57.1 million | The real cash burden sits below operating cash flow |
These numbers also explain why ALDO was not just a gross-margin story. The acquired activity added NIS 33.7 million of revenue and NIS 22.1 million of gross profit in 2025, but its annual operating contribution was still negative by about NIS 0.7 million. At the same time, the balance sheet absorbed NIS 10.6 million of ALDO inventory, while right-of-use assets and lease liabilities rose because of the acquisition. In other words, Brill received a better sales mix, but it also took on a heavier lease layer before the new activity proved a comfortable operating profit contribution.
That does not mean ALDO was a mistake. It does mean that the translation from store to profit, and from profit to cash, is not finished yet. As long as the retail model leans on more directly operated stores, the cash has to flow first through rent, interest and payroll before it becomes real freedom.
This Is Not an Immediate Covenant Crisis, but Room Is Still Tight
To avoid overstating the point, it is important to say what this file is not saying. At parent-company level, the covenants were far from pressure: covenant equity stood at NIS 149.4 million versus a NIS 30 million floor, the equity-plus-shareholder-loans ratio stood at 52% versus a 30% requirement, and the tangible-equity-to-balance-sheet ratio stood at 28% versus a 14% threshold.
S.B.N also returned to compliance with the more sensitive EBITDA-to-debt-service covenant, at 2.44 versus a 1.7 requirement, and reclassified NIS 4.8 million of bank obligations back out of current liabilities. So this is not a thesis about immediate covenant breach.
But there is a wide distance between "no immediate pressure" and "real freedom." Year-end cash stood at only NIS 14.3 million. Working capital fell to NIS 48.0 million from NIS 54.4 million. The current ratio stayed at 1.2, but the quick ratio was only 0.5. At the same time, the company ended the year with NIS 71.8 million of short-term loans and credit from banks and others, plus NIS 22.7 million of current maturities of long-term loans. This is not a collapsing structure, but it is also not one that leaves much room for error.
That is why the right reading of 2025 is neither panic nor comfort. It is the reading of a business that improved operationally, but still needs almost all of that improvement to fund its structure and keep reducing financial risk already sitting on the balance sheet.
Conclusion
The main article was right to argue that Brill's retail story looks better. This follow-up only clarifies where the relief stops. Brill generated strong operating cash in 2025, but it was the cash flow of a business with heavy depreciation, heavy leases and working-capital release, not the cash flow of a company that has already opened a new cushion for equity holders.
The practical point is simple. Before new long-term borrowing, Brill's full 2025 cash picture was negative by NIS 22.5 million. That does not mean Brill is operationally weak. It means that the better gross margin was still largely absorbed by leases, interest and short-term-credit reduction.
That also defines the 2026 test. The market does not need another report with a pretty gross margin. It needs to see that store-level profitability, especially in ALDO, can pass through the lease and interest layer, that short-term credit can keep declining without cash staying stuck near NIS 14 million, and that Brill does not need new borrowing again just to show a cleaner cash outcome.
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.