Spacecom: How much of equity really depends on the occupancy assumptions in Amos 4 and Amos 17
Spacecom's equity rose to $71.9 million, but $20.3 million of that came from the revaluation of Amos 4 and Amos 17. The sensitivity tables show that even a fairly ordinary miss in revenue or discount rate can shrink that cushion quickly.
What This Follow-up Is Isolating
The main article argued that Spacecom's debt restructuring solved the survival problem, but not the value question. This follow-up isolates the exact place where that question becomes balance-sheet reality: year-end 2025 equity.
The company ended the year with equity of $71.9 million, up from $28.9 million a year earlier. Of that improvement, $20.3 million came from the revaluation of Amos 4 and Amos 17, $15.7 million on Amos 17 and $4.6 million on Amos 4. Put differently, almost half of the yearly increase in equity came from a revised value judgment on two assets.
That is not an argument against doing the revaluation. The company applies the revaluation model for these satellites and provided a full valuation report. The point is different: if a material part of the improvement in equity came from revaluation, then the sensitivity tables are not a footnote. They are the heart of the issue. That is where it becomes clear that the accounting cushion looks acceptable in the base case, but compresses quickly once revenue or the discount rate move even modestly.
Amos 4: A Small Cushion on a Short Runway
At first glance, Amos 4 looks like the stable asset in the package. The presentation shows 95% occupancy and roughly $21 million of backlog at the start of 2026. But the valuation does not price only the year-end 2025 snapshot. It prices what happens after current contracts begin to roll off.
The satellite has only about 2.9 operating years left, through November 2028. The valuation assumes average occupancy of 75% in Ka and 83% in Ku. That matters because the Ka beam is fully leased to the Israeli government only until September 30, 2026, and after that the model assumes it can be leased again to the government or to other customers, but at a lower scale. The Ku transponders are also assumed to remain leasable after the current contracts end, again at reduced levels.
On those assumptions, Amos 4's recoverable amount was set at $19.2 million against a depreciated carrying value of $14.7 million. That leaves a $4.6 million uplift. That number is less comfortable than it sounds. The sensitivity table shows that a 5% revenue decline takes the recoverable amount down to $15.3 million, leaving only a $0.6 million cushion above book value. A 10% revenue decline takes it down to $11.3 million, below book value. Even with no revenue hit, a 1% increase in WACC removes about $1 million of value.
That is the real issue with Amos 4. This is not an asset with a decade of remaining life to repair a pricing or renewal miss. It is a short-runway asset, so even a fairly small commercial miss moves quickly from the operating story into the equity story.
Amos 17: Most of the Cushion, Most of the Sensitivity
If Amos 4 is a small cushion with a short horizon, Amos 17 is the larger cushion with much heavier balance-sheet weight. The valuation sets its recoverable amount at $164.9 million against a depreciated carrying value of $149.1 million. In other words, out of the total $20.3 million revaluation cushion across the two satellites, $15.7 million sits in Amos 17 alone.
Here too, it is important to separate what is already contracted from what the model assumes will happen. The presentation shows Amos 17 with 68% occupancy and about $44 million of backlog at the start of 2026. The valuation model, by contrast, leans on a 2028 steady state of 68% in C-band, 96% in Ku-band, and 92% in Ka-band. It also assumes average annual revenue of $44.7 million, average EBITDA of about 58%, and WACC of 11.95%.
That is not a fantastical jump, but it is also not a picture built only on what is signed today. That is why the sensitivity table matters more than the headline $164.9 million number. A 5% revenue decline takes the recoverable amount down to $152.0 million, leaving only a $2.9 million cushion above book value. A 10% revenue decline takes it down to $139.1 million, about $10 million below book value. A 1% increase in WACC removes about $9 million of value.
That does not mean the valuation is inherently too aggressive. It does mean that equity is commercially sensitive. In Amos 17, almost every miss in occupancy, pricing, or cost of capital flows directly through the largest asset on the balance sheet.
A Mechanical Read of the Equity Cushion
Once the two sensitivity tables are combined, the picture becomes much sharper. In the reported base case, the two satellites together carry a positive gap of $20.3 million above book value. But it takes only a modest move away from the center for that cushion to shrink materially:
| Scenario | Amos 4 | Amos 17 | Combined gap versus book value | Implied equity if only the revaluation gap changes* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reported base case | 19.2 | 164.9 | 20.3 | 71.9 |
| Revenue down 5% | 15.3 | 152.0 | 3.5 | 55.1 |
| WACC up 1% | 18.2 | 155.9 | 10.3 | 61.9 |
| Revenue down 5% and WACC up 0.5% | 14.8 | 147.9 | (1.1) | 50.5 |
| Revenue down 10% | 11.3 | 139.1 | (13.4) | 38.2 |
* Analytical calculation that keeps the rest of the balance sheet unchanged and updates only the revaluation gap on the two satellites.
What does that table really say? First, a 5% revenue miss does not wipe out equity, but it almost wipes out the revaluation cushion. Second, a 5% revenue miss combined with only a 0.5% increase in WACC is already enough to move the two satellites from a small positive gap to a small negative one versus book value. Third, a 10% revenue miss creates a $33.7 million swing versus the reported base case, because the positive uplift disappears and then turns into a deficit.
That is exactly why the gap between economic equity and market value does not look like free upside. The valuation report itself presents economic equity of about $72 million against a market value of $61.2 million on December 31, 2025, with quarter-average market values in the $68 million to $70 million range. In other words, the market is not pricing disaster, but it is also not giving full credit to the revaluation cushion. The sensitivity tables explain why.
Bottom Line
Spacecom's old debt burden was indeed cleaned up, but the new equity base does not rest only on cash, only on the rights issue, or only on operating earnings. A meaningful part of it rests on Amos 4 and Amos 17 actually delivering occupancy, pricing, and cost-of-capital outcomes that stay reasonably close to the valuation assumptions.
That means the most important numbers in the next reports are not just revenue and EBITDA. The market will be watching Amos 17 renewals, pricing per unit of capacity, refill rates after contracts roll off, and Amos 4's ability to replace government Ka and current Ku demand without a sharp reset lower. At the same time, any move in the cost of capital becomes a balance-sheet issue immediately, not just a model issue.
In continuation-analysis terms, the core point is simple: the cushion exists, but it is not thick. It depends on the occupancy assumptions in Amos 4 and Amos 17 starting to look like an execution path in 2026 and 2027, not just a reasonable-looking spreadsheet case.
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.