Rotshtein's Tnuvot Site: How Much Of The Value Is NOI And How Much Is Still Option Premium
Tnuvot is already generating real cash for Rotshtein and supporting a higher fair-value base, but in 2025 most of its economics still rested on exclusivity fees and option value tied to a future lease. Until a long-term lease moves past the early cancellation window, this is not yet a mature NOI asset.
What This Follow-up Is Isolating
The main article argued that Rotshtein’s core issue is the gap between value created and value that is actually accessible. Tnuvot is the sharpest place to test that argument. By the end of 2025 the site was already carried at ILS 218.2 million, it was generating cash, and it gave the company a more credible income-property and logistics story. But once the economics are separated into layers, the picture gets tighter: a meaningful part of the value still rests on exclusivity fees and option premium tied to a future lease, not on stabilized NOI from an operating logistics asset.
That is not just a semantic distinction. In income property there is a big difference between land that received a premium because a potential tenant is engaged, and an asset that already produces recurring NOI under a long-term lease without a near-term exit route. Tnuvot sits in the middle. The progress is real, but the destination has not been reached yet.
What is already hard value should not be dismissed. The company had already completed the purchase of two out of three plots, around 42 dunams out of 53, and by year-end 2025 it had completed excavation and shoring works. At the same time, the tenant had already paid ILS 14.8 million during 2025: ILS 3.6 million for the first exclusivity period, ILS 1.2 million for the extension, and another ILS 10 million for the first year under the amended LOI. So this is not just presentation material. There is land, there is work already done, and there is cash.
But this is also exactly where the distinction matters. The cash is already real. The NOI is still not.
| Layer | What exists at year-end 2025 | Where it sits in the accounts | Why it is still not full NOI |
|---|---|---|---|
| The land itself | Carrying value and fair value of ILS 218.2 million | Investment property in the industrial bucket | The valuation explicitly includes option premium for a possible long-term lease under probability scenarios |
| One-off exclusivity fees | ILS 4.8 million | Other income from investment property | Real cash, but one-off and tied to due diligence and exclusivity rather than operating logistics income |
| Annual exclusivity payment | ILS 10 million per year from November 2025 | Partly recognized in income and partly still carried as advance payments | This is payment for exclusivity and the right to progress toward a lease, not operating rent from a live asset |
| Potential operating economics | About ILS 15 million of annual pretax income and cash flow during operation | Described as the economics during the operating period | This is much closer to true NOI, but only if a long-term lease is actually signed and reaches operation |
What Is Already Real
The easiest mistake is to throw Tnuvot into the bucket of pure optionality. That is wrong. There are three hard anchors here already.
The first is the site itself and the work already done. The current zoning plan grants rights for a logistics storage center of around 53,000 above-ground square meters, and by the end of 2025 the company had already completed excavation and shoring works. In plain terms, the site is no longer just an idea. Capital has already gone in, and physical progress has already happened.
The second is the cash. During 2025 Tnuvot did not generate only a valuation uplift. It also generated real receipts. In the second quarter the company received ILS 3.6 million for the first six months of exclusivity. In the fourth quarter it received another ILS 1.2 million for the two-month extension. At year-end it received ILS 10 million for the first year under the amended LOI. The combined ILS 14.8 million is already a real cash layer, not a mark-to-model estimate.
The third is that part of this cash has already been recognized through profit and loss. Other income from investment property came to ILS 4.818 million in 2025, and the company explains that this line reflects the one-off exclusivity fees for the due-diligence period relating to the Tnuvot land. In other words, even the company’s own reporting is separating the layers: some exclusivity payments were already recognized, while other parts of the economics have not yet matured into clean recurring income.
This chart is one of the most important clues in the entire story. In the future signed-revenue table, the company presents ILS 50.629 million of fixed revenue without tenant option exercise. But the footnote under that table clarifies that those figures represent monthly exclusivity fees per square meter of land. That means even the schedule that visually resembles a signed lease-revenue stream is still, at this stage, an exclusivity-fee stream on land rather than operating rent from a functioning logistics property.
Where The Recurring-Income Story Starts To Stretch
The stretch begins when three different layers are blended under the single label of “income-producing.” At Tnuvot there is land with a higher value, there is a fixed annual exclusivity payment, and there is a possible long-term lease. Those are three very different layers with very different quality.
The first layer is valuation. At the end of 2025 the site is carried at ILS 218.2 million, up from ILS 192.1 million at the end of 2024. In the valuation disclosure itself, the appraiser states that the value per dunam was assessed at ILS 4.7 million with adjustments that include an addition for the option to enter a long-term lease agreement under probability scenarios. That wording matters. It explicitly says that part of the value does not come from current NOI. It comes from the probability that the land will mature into a long-term lease later on.
The second layer is bridge cash. The original March 2025 LOI gave the tenant six months of exclusivity for ILS 3.6 million, with a two-month extension for another ILS 1.2 million. The amended LOI signed in November 2025 turned that into a much longer package: five years of exclusivity starting on November 13, 2025, for a fixed annual payment of ILS 10 million plus VAT and capped CPI indexation of up to 3%. That is valuable cash flow. It also explains why the market can no longer look at Tnuvot as just idle land. But it is still a payment for exclusivity and for the right to advance toward a lease, not a clean NOI contract on a live logistics asset.
The third layer is the future economics if a long-term lease is actually signed. The published terms are clear: if the lease is signed, the tenant pays ILS 20 per month for each square meter of land until the asset starts operating or until four years have passed from the lease signing, whichever comes first, and then ILS 30 per month per square meter during the operating period. The company also says annual pretax income and cash flow during operation are expected to be about ILS 15 million. That starts to look like a true income-producing property. The problem is that this is still a possible future state, not the current one.
The report itself almost spells out this distinction for anyone willing to read carefully. In the 2025 income-property tables, the industrial bucket shows actual yield of 4.5% and average monthly rent of ILS 20 per square meter. Without the footnote, it would be easy to read that as another industrial asset that has already started operating. But the footnote says those figures represent monthly exclusivity fees per square meter of land. So the industrial line for Tnuvot is already dressed in the language of income property, even though the underlying economics are still much closer to monetized exclusivity on land.
What Still Has To Happen Before This Becomes NOI
This is the core of the follow-up. For Tnuvot to deserve the label of NOI, something material still has to happen: the long-term lease has to be signed, it has to remain in force beyond the exit window, and it has to progress into an operating asset.
None of that had happened by the end of 2025. The amended LOI gives the tenant the right to cancel after two years with six months’ prior notice. Even if the tenant does not cancel, there is still no certainty that the LOI will mature into a long-term lease. And even if a long-term lease is signed, the company writes explicitly that there is no certainty there will not be material changes in the terms, and no certainty that the agreement will reach actual realization and completion. That is not legal boilerplate. It is exactly the line between an option that is worth money and NOI that can already be capitalized with high confidence.
It is also important to look at the compensation mechanism if things do not mature. If the tenant cancels the LOI or fails to sign the lease by the end of the exclusivity period, it is supposed to pay ILS 5 million plus VAT for each exclusivity year that has elapsed, up to a cap of ILS 25 million. That gives Tnuvot a certain downside floor. But a downside floor like that is compensation for an option that did not fully mature, not a substitute for recurring NOI.
The same message appears in the balance sheet. In note 17 the company shows ILS 8.83 million at year-end under advances on account of rent and exclusivity. That matters because by then the company had already received the first ILS 10 million payment under the amended LOI. In practical terms, a large part of the cash had already arrived, but it was still sitting on the balance sheet as an advance rather than flowing through 2025 as fully earned rent. Accounting itself is therefore telling the reader: there is cash here, but there is still not a fully mature recurring NOI stream.
What This Means For The Valuation Read
The clean way to read Tnuvot at the end of 2025 is to split it into three floors.
The first floor is hard land value and physical progress. That layer deserves full credit. The land exists, the works are real, and the engagement with a potential tenant is not theoretical anymore.
The second floor is option value that has already been monetized into cash. That also deserves full credit, but a different type of credit. The exclusivity payments, the annual ILS 10 million stream, and the potential cancellation compensation all create real economic value. They also reduce the downside risk that the site remains entirely dormant.
The third floor is future NOI that still needs proof. This is where the read has to stay disciplined. Until there is a signed long-term lease that survives the exit window, and until the asset moves toward operation, there is no reason to give all ILS 218.2 million the same weight one would give to a stabilized logistics property under a clean lease.
It is also telling that the company’s own March 2026 work plan for 2026-2027 income-producing and commercial assets highlights Neshar, Ashdod, Beit Shemesh Phase B, Talrad, Beit Shemesh Phase C, and Alfei Menashe. Tnuvot is not listed there. That does not mean it lost value. It does suggest that the company itself is not yet presenting Tnuvot as the near-term execution core of the recurring-property layer.
The bottom line is simple: Tnuvot already has real value, but most of that 2025 value still sits closer to land with a paying exclusive tenant and option premium than to mature NOI from an operating logistics asset. If the market starts assigning a stabilized logistics multiple to Tnuvot today, it is getting ahead of the evidence. If it ignores the cash stream and the fact that the site has already extracted money from the tenant, it is missing an asset that has clearly started to monetize. The correct read sits in the middle: full credit to the land and the cash, and more cautious credit to NOI that still needs to be born.
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.