Property & Building in 2025: Gav-Yam Is Strong, 10 Bryant Improved, but Financing Still Caps the Story
Property & Building ends 2025 with a stronger Israeli engine at Gav-Yam and a materially improved leasing picture at 10 Bryant, but common shareholders still sit behind a parent layer that needs additional funding in 2026. This is a bridge year in which operating and accounting value was created, yet turning that value into accessible cash still depends on Gav-Yam dividends, refinancing, and further execution at the tower.
Company Overview
Property & Building can look like an almost too-obvious value case at first glance. The company owns 64.02% of Gav-Yam, which finished 2025 with 97% occupancy, 888 million ILS of rental and management revenue, and 759 million ILS of NOI. It also owns 100% of the 10 Bryant tower in Manhattan, which entered a new phase in 2025 with a major Amazon lease and another anchor tenant in the retail component. In mid February 2026 the company’s market cap stood at about 3.26 billion ILS, roughly in line with attributed equity. By April 3, 2026, the market cap had already fallen to about 2.45 billion ILS.
But that is only part of the story. Property & Building is not a plain operating real estate company. It is a leveraged holding layer sitting above a very strong Israeli asset and above a US asset that still needs time, investment, and financing. In other words, what works well at the Gav-Yam level or at the tower level does not flow to common shareholders of the parent at the same speed.
What is working now is clear. Gav-Yam is the proven engine. The Israeli business shows a strong mix of occupancy, rent growth, development, and dividend capacity. Something real also happened at 10 Bryant: Amazon leased about 330 thousand square feet, Life Time leased about 52 thousand square feet of retail space, and occupancy stands at a level reflecting 85% of forecast rent. This is no longer a stalled asset.
What is still not clean is the parent layer. The company itself has no employees, so this is effectively a capital allocation and holding platform more than a standalone operating body. In the consolidated statements, the tower is classified as a discontinued operation. For shareholders, though, it is not discontinued at all: it is still pledged, still needs investment, and still requires additional financing in 2026. The company says so explicitly.
That is the core of the thesis. A superficial reading can look at Gav-Yam, look at the tower’s fair value, and conclude that the gap between asset value and market value is a clean opportunity. That is the wrong read. The gap is real, but access to it still runs through refinancing, upstream dividends, execution at 10 Bryant, and tighter balance-sheet discipline at the parent.
The quick map looks like this:
| Layer | What sits there | What works now | What still blocks a cleaner read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gav-Yam | 64.02% ownership | 97% occupancy, 759 million ILS of NOI, 432 million ILS management FFO to shareholders and 440 million ILS on a normalized Q4 basis | This is a strong engine, but it sits at the subsidiary level and does not automatically equal accessible cash at the parent |
| 10 Bryant | 100% of the Manhattan tower | Amazon, Life Time, 81% occupancy, 728 million USD fair value | 2025 still reflects weaker NOI, free-rent periods, tenant-improvement spend, and a need for more financing |
| Parent company | Debt, funding, capital allocation, dividends | Gav-Yam share sales, positive solo operating cash flow, review of two new bond series | Even after the 2025 moves, the company says it expects to need additional credit sources in 2026 |
The chart does not prove a clean mispricing on its own. What it does is sharpen the right question: how much of the value created inside Gav-Yam and at 10 Bryant is actually accessible to Property & Building shareholders, and on what timeline.
Events and Triggers
2025 was a year in which the company both created value and bought time, while also effectively admitting that the story still runs through financing.
Gav-Yam continues to carry the story
The first trigger: Property & Building sold two blocks of Gav-Yam shares in 2025, about 2.4% in July for 200 million ILS and about 7.6% in November for 650 million ILS. This improved parent-level funding flexibility, but it also highlights the core point: when the parent needs liquidity, it still turns first to the more liquid and more mature Israeli engine.
The second trigger: Gav-Yam distributed 290 million ILS in dividends during 2025, of which Property & Building’s share was 206 million ILS. After the balance-sheet date, on February 3, 2026, Gav-Yam declared another 60 million ILS dividend, with 38 million ILS attributable to Property & Building. That is a positive signal, but also a reminder that common shareholders at the parent access Gav-Yam’s operating strength through dividend policy and subsidiary capital structure.
10 Bryant moved from repositioning to anchor leasing
The third trigger: The Amazon lease was signed in April 2025. Amazon leased about 330 thousand square feet, about 31 thousand square meters, for 15 years, with an option on roughly 145 thousand additional square feet in 1W39. Rent on the leased area amounts to about 29.5 million USD per year, with step-ups after years 5 and 10.
The fourth trigger: In June 2025 the company signed the Life Time lease for a luxury fitness club in roughly 52 thousand square feet of retail space. This is an important branding and activation move for the building, but it also comes with renovation work, shared fit-out costs, and a ramp period through an expected opening in the fourth quarter of 2026.
The market is already pushing the parent into the next funding step
The fifth trigger: In February 2026 the company published draft terms for two new unsecured bond series, series 12 and 13. The very fact that it is reviewing two new series means the parent funding question was not solved by the 2025 Gav-Yam share sales. It was only pushed forward.
The sixth trigger: Between the first draft on February 8, 2026 and the third draft on February 19, 2026, the dividend-distribution guardrails were tightened. The minimum equity threshold after a distribution rose from 1.8 billion ILS to 1.95 billion ILS, and the net debt-to-assets cap fell from 68% to 67%. External funding markets are already signaling what they want to see: a larger buffer and less payout freedom at the parent.
Efficiency, Profitability and Competition
The right way to read 2025 is to separate the high-quality operating engine from the areas where the parent is still buying time.
Gav-Yam is the real operating engine
At the Gav-Yam level, 2025 looks good from almost every operating angle. Rental and management revenue rose to 888 million ILS from 802 million ILS in 2024. NOI rose to 759 million ILS from 692 million ILS. Same Property NOI rose to 707 million ILS from 670 million ILS. Occupancy reached 97%. Gav-Yam signed 192 leases during 2025 covering about 204 thousand square meters of above-ground space, generating roughly 168 million ILS per year, with an average real rent uplift of 4.2%.
That is real competitive strength. It is not just a fair-value story. It is a combination of strong demand areas, resilient tenants, new asset deliveries, and an ability to roll inflation through CPI-linked leases.
Even here, though, the accounting layer matters. Gav-Yam’s net income attributable to shareholders was 670 million ILS, but that included 541 million ILS of fair-value gains on investment property and another 73 million ILS of other income related to additional consideration rights in a Haifa residential project. The cleaner recurring number is management FFO to shareholders, 432 million ILS, or 440 million ILS on a normalized Q4 basis.
The problem is that these are Gav-Yam numbers, not Property & Building numbers. Even if Gav-Yam delivers on the guidance, parent shareholders only access that strength through a 64.02% ownership layer, dividend policy, parent debt, and continued spending needs at the tower.
10 Bryant is improving operationally, but 2025 still is not a harvest year
One of the least obvious points in the package sits here. The tower improved at the lease and valuation level, but 2025 itself still looked weaker at the revenue and NOI level.
Rental income at 10 Bryant fell to 61 million USD from 75 million USD in 2024. NOI fell to 25 million USD from 40 million USD. At the same time, fair value increased to 728 million USD. That is not a contradiction. It is simply a different kind of year: one of repositioning, anchor leasing, free-rent periods, tenant improvements, and preparation for better operating economics later on.
The note disclosures are explicit. Under the Amazon lease the company committed to 53.8 million USD of tenant-improvement spending on the leased area, another 17.4 million USD if the option space is exercised, and about 20 million USD of additional renovation and upgrade work. Amazon also received 16 months of free rent. In other words, operating and accounting value is being built now, but cash realization comes later.
Group earnings still rest almost entirely on one layer
If 2025 is stripped down to segment contribution, the picture becomes very sharp. Gav-Yam contributed 500 million ILS at the company level. 10 Bryant contributed a 121 million ILS loss. Other items barely changed the thesis. What brought attributed net income down to 201 million ILS was mainly the financing and holding-company layer.
That is exactly why the stock trades like a financing-and-holdco story rather than like a straightforward income property company. The high-quality operating profit is largely inside Gav-Yam. The loss, risk, and need for fresh sources flow through the tower and the parent.
Cash Flow, Debt and Capital Structure
This is the place to use the all-in cash flexibility lens. The key question is not how much Gav-Yam earns on paper or how much the tower’s fair value increased. The key question is how much cash actually remains at the parent after real cash uses.
The parent cash picture only looks reasonable if asset monetization is included
In the parent-only statements, solo operating cash flow in 2025 was 191 million ILS. That is not a bad starting point. But the all-in picture also includes heavy uses: 200 million ILS of dividends paid by the company, 146 million ILS of interest paid, 63 million ILS paid to terminate the PUT option early, and 558 million ILS of repayments of non-current financial liabilities.
What offset those uses? First, 847 million ILS of proceeds from the sale of shares in consolidated subsidiaries to non-controlling interests, in practice Gav-Yam share sales. Second, 145 million ILS of private commercial paper issuance. So the year-end solo cash balance of 390 million ILS is not the picture of a parent funding itself only from recurring internal cash generation. It is the picture of a parent that relied in 2025 on both asset monetization and new funding channels.
There is no immediate covenant pressure, but there is a refinancing test
The good news is that the company is currently well inside its financial covenants. Attributed equity stood at 3.261 billion ILS at year-end 2025, versus a 1.4 billion ILS threshold for series 10 and 11. Net debt-to-assets stood at 53.4%, versus a 72% threshold. Net debt-to-EBITDA stood at 14.6, versus a ceiling of 17.
The problem is that the absence of covenant stress is not the same thing as the absence of refinancing pressure. In the investor presentation, the company shows expanded solo financial debt of 4.647 billion ILS, liquid assets of 471 million ILS, and net financial debt of 4.176 billion ILS, including 1.316 billion ILS tied to 10 Bryant and excluding Gav-Yam.
The maturity wall excluding Gav-Yam makes the point clearly: 523 million ILS of principal in 2026, 1.702 billion ILS in 2027, 378 million ILS in 2028, and 2.064 billion ILS in 2029. This is not an immediate insolvency picture, but it is very much the picture of a holding company that needs capital markets to stay open.
The company itself says the funding story is not finished
The most important line in the financing note may be the simplest one: the company believes it will need additional credit sources during 2026 for ongoing debt service and expected investments in the tower. That is not interpretation. That is an explicit statement.
The company also lays out the potential routes: refinancing through loans, expansion of existing series, new bond issuance, credit lines, commercial paper, expected Gav-Yam dividends, the ability to sell further small stakes in Gav-Yam while keeping control, and a sale of the tower. This is exactly the list that separates value that exists from value that is actually accessible.
There is also a foreign-exchange layer. Given the cash source for servicing series 11, the company entered into FORWARD hedging transactions totaling 132 million USD, maturing between March and September 2026. That reduces part of the near-term mismatch between a dollar asset and shekel debt service, but it does not change the broader fact that the tower remains a US asset requiring meaningful investment before the leasing upside fully reaches the parent cash line.
Outlook
Before trying to summarize 2026, it helps to pin down 5 findings that are easy to miss on a first read:
- Gav-Yam already looks like a mature engine, but it remains an engine at the subsidiary level. Even the 2026 to 2028 NOI and FFO guidance does not remove the need to bridge through the parent.
- 10 Bryant improved as a leasing and valuation story, but 2025 still showed lower NOI and lower revenue. Anyone looking only at the 728 million USD valuation can miss the economic cost of free rent and tenant-improvement spending.
- 2025 bought time through Gav-Yam. The sale of roughly 10% of the Gav-Yam stake and the dividends received gave the parent breathing room, but also proved that parent liquidity still depends on the Israeli asset.
- The company is not under covenant stress, but it is under pressure to show a credible funding path. That distinction matters. The current issue is not breach risk. It is the price and quality of refinancing.
- The draft terms for series 12 and 13 are not cosmetic. They are a live market test of how investors read the parent layer after 2025.
The natural conclusion is that 2026 looks like a bridge year. Not a crisis year, but not a clean harvest year either. For the reading on the company to improve materially, three things have to happen in parallel.
Gav-Yam needs to keep generating and distributing, not just looking strong
If Gav-Yam delivers on its normalized 2026 run-rate guidance, 465 to 485 million ILS of management FFO to shareholders and 690 to 710 million ILS of NOI to shareholders, pressure at the parent should ease. But those numbers are not automatically the same as cash at Property & Building. They first tell us that the Israeli asset keeps getting stronger and that the parent has a credible source of future dividends or equity-related moves if needed.
Economically, this means Gav-Yam has to pass both the quality-of-earnings test and the accessibility test. The quality test looks better in normalized FFO than in net income. The accessibility test depends on payout decisions and the capital needs of the subsidiary itself.
10 Bryant has to move from signed leases to cash flow
The tower is no longer an asset with no direction. But for the market to read it differently in 2026, more tenant announcements will not be enough. The key checkpoints are threefold: execution on the Amazon option space in 1W39, the actual opening of Life Time in the fourth quarter of 2026, and progress on the repositioning spend without a cost overhang that forces the parent back into the market too quickly.
There is also a timing issue here. If the company sells the tower too early, it may owe Amazon a sale-related payment tied to sale value and investment spend. If it waits too long, it has to fund a longer period of renovation, free-rent burn, and delayed cash realization. So 2026 is not only a repositioning year. It is also a year of deciding what form of value realization the tower should take.
The nearest test is the debt market
The most immediate issue for shareholders is not Gav-Yam occupancy or tower fair value. It is the parent’s ability to raise capital on reasonable terms. The series 12 and 13 drafts provide exactly that market read. They are built around new unsecured debt, include an A base rating on one of the proposed series, and signal that funding markets want tighter distribution discipline and a larger equity buffer.
In that sense, 2026 is not a breakout year. It is an operating proof year for Gav-Yam, an execution year for 10 Bryant, and a financing year at the parent. Only if those three circles connect will the gap between value on paper and accessible value begin to narrow.
Short data does not point to an especially aggressive bearish positioning here. Short interest ranged between about 0.82% and 1.41% of float, and stood at 0.98% at the end of March 2026, with a 2.14 SIR. In other words, market skepticism is expressed mainly through the stock price and debt pricing, not through an extreme short dislocation.
Risks
The first risk is value accessibility risk. Gav-Yam is worth a lot, but its value is accessible to Property & Building shareholders only through dividends, monetization, or financing secured against that value. The tower is worth 728 million USD, but that value still runs through execution, fit-out spending, and a sale market that is not yet fully monetized.
The second risk is parent-level financing risk. The company itself says it will need additional sources during 2026. That does not mean immediate distress, but it does mean the equity story remains highly sensitive to the price, structure, and market reception of the next refinancing step.
The third risk is execution risk at 10 Bryant. The Amazon and Life Time leases are a clear improvement, but they also include free-rent periods, large tenant-improvement commitments, and in Amazon’s case an option space that has not yet been exercised. If the repositioning takes longer or costs more, accounting value will stay ahead of cash.
The fourth risk is the possibility that the Israeli engine slows at the wrong time. Gav-Yam is strong, but 2025 also included 73 million ILS of other income and 541 million ILS of fair-value gains. If leasing, development, or office demand softens, the parent could face fewer internal sources just when it needs more funding.
The fifth risk is the structural risk of a holding company. As long as the parent continues to solve liquidity through Gav-Yam share sales or new debt issuance, the discount can persist even if the underlying assets improve. That is not necessarily a criticism of the assets. It is a criticism of the access layer above them.
| Risk | Why it matters now | What would ease it |
|---|---|---|
| Parent financing | The company expects to need additional sources already in 2026 | Successful completion of series 12 and 13 or a similarly reasonable refinancing alternative |
| Gav-Yam value accessibility | Most of the high-quality value sits in the subsidiary | Continued dividends and stable capital allocation at Gav-Yam |
| 10 Bryant execution | The 2025 repositioning still needs cash and time | Leasing or monetizing the Amazon option space, opening Life Time, and advancing the lobby works |
| Fair value versus cash flow | Part of the earnings at Gav-Yam and the tower is not clean recurring cash | A gradual shift from valuation uplift toward actual NOI and cash flow |
| Structural discount | Asset value does not automatically mean accessible value for common shareholders | Lower leverage, simpler structure, or monetization at strong prices |
Conclusions
Property & Building ends 2025 with two assets moving in the right direction, Gav-Yam in Israel and 10 Bryant in New York. But common shareholders do not own two clean assets. They own a parent layer that still has to translate those assets into dividends, refinancing room, and accessible cash. That is why the right lens is not whether value exists, but whether that value is beginning to become reachable.
What supports the thesis right now is Gav-Yam: high occupancy, growing rent, strong normalized FFO, and dividend capacity. What still weighs on it is 10 Bryant as an asset still in an investment and repositioning phase, and the fact that the company explicitly says it will need additional sources in 2026. What can change market interpretation in the short to medium term is mainly the next funding move at the parent, not another line in a valuation table.
| Metric | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Overall moat strength | 4.0 / 5 | Gav-Yam owns strong and resilient assets, and the tower has secured quality anchor tenants, but the parent layer dilutes part of that advantage |
| Overall risk level | 3.8 / 5 | There is no immediate covenant stress, but there is meaningful dependence on refinancing, Gav-Yam dividends, and tower execution |
| Value-chain resilience | Medium | The Israeli asset base is very strong, but access to that value still runs through the parent structure |
| Strategic clarity | Medium | The direction is clear, Gav-Yam as the upstream cash engine and 10 Bryant as the reposition-and-monetize asset, but the funding path is still not fully closed |
| Short positioning | 0.98% of float, down from a 1.41% peak | Short interest is relatively moderate and does not signal an unusual dislocation, so skepticism remains concentrated in price and debt spreads |
Current thesis: Gav-Yam is stronger, 10 Bryant is better, but common-shareholder value still has to pass through the parent funding test.
What changed: In 2025 the company improved liquidity through Gav-Yam share sales, received upstream dividends, and moved the tower into a new leasing phase. At the same time, it shifted from a hidden value-access issue to an explicit, managed 2026 funding issue.
Counter thesis: The market may be too cautious. Gav-Yam provides a very strong operating engine, the tower is no longer a stuck asset, and the company is far from covenant pressure. If 2026 funding closes cleanly, the current discount could prove too deep.
What could change market interpretation: Successful completion of a new funding step at the parent, continued dividends from Gav-Yam, and evidence that 10 Bryant’s 2025 repositioning is starting to flow into NOI and cash.
Why this matters: Property & Building is a classic case in which value created at the asset level must be separated from value accessible to common shareholders. As long as that gap remains, financing structure matters almost as much as real-estate quality.
What must happen over the next 2 to 4 quarters: The parent has to secure additional funding without giving up too much flexibility, Gav-Yam has to keep upstreaming cash out of a strong operating engine, and 10 Bryant has to show that the 2025 repositioning is starting to appear in revenue and NOI. What would weaken the thesis is overly expensive financing, an unexpected slowdown at Gav-Yam, or additional tower spending without enough cash-flow progress.
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.
Series 12 and 13 say that the debt market is still open to Property & Building at the parent level, but not on a loose-optionality basis. Any achievable funding comes with a thicker equity buffer, tighter distribution rules, and pricing that starts worsening earlier if the paren…
At 10 Bryant, the repositioning is already visible in leases and valuation, but not yet in NOI and cash. The gap is being driven by a long free-rent period, large TI and upgrade commitments, and a possible payment to Amazon in a sale.