Smart Agro 2025: SupPlant, the unconverted SAFE, and what it means for the mark
Smart Agro's carrying value in SupPlant jumped to NIS 4.46 million, but most of the move came from revaluation rather than new cash. The SAFE that was supposed to turn that story into a cleaner equity fact was still open at the end of January, which leaves the mark looking ahead of the capital structure around it.
What This Follow-Up Is Isolating
The main article argued that the gap between Smart Agro's paper value and its liquid bridge runs through a very small number of holdings. This follow-up isolates SupPlant because the annual filing places three things side by side: a sharp mark-up, ongoing dependence on financing, and a SAFE mechanism that was supposed to convert on December 31 but was still open at the end of January.
That is the core point: SupPlant ended 2025 at a fair value of NIS 4.46 million, up from NIS 2.061 million a year earlier. On its face, that looks like a strong validation for one of the portfolio's key assets. But the same evidence set also says the SAFE conversion scheduled for year-end did not happen on time because SupPlant was considering an expansion of the SAFE raise. So the right reading is not "the mark is proven," and it is not "the mark has failed." The right reading is that the mark improved faster than the capital structure around it became clean.
Three findings carry the whole discussion. First, most of the 2025 increase did not come from new money but from revaluation. Out of a NIS 2.399 million increase in the carrying value, only NIS 477 thousand came from new investment, while NIS 1.922 million came from fair-value uplift. Second, the operating support the partnership points to, revenue growth of more than 50% in 2025, is explicitly presented as company-provided information rather than audited or reviewed financial data. Third, the annual report still points back to SupPlant's audited 2024 statements as carrying an emphasis on dependence on external financing, while also saying the company has cash for the near term and is working to complete another round during the first quarter of 2026.
| Milestone | What was disclosed | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| March 2024 | SupPlant was in a SAFE fundraising process of about $6 million, with a $100 million cap and a 30% discount if the next round came in below that level | The conversion economics were tied to a financing event that had not yet closed |
| November 5, 2024 | Smart Agro invested $350 thousand through SAFE | The SAFE layer had already become material to the position |
| December 30, 2025 | Another $150 thousand was invested through SAFE, with a conversion date set for December 31, 2025 | This was the step that was supposed to clean up the ownership story quickly |
| December 31, 2025 | The position was marked at NIS 4.46 million | This is the number that enters year-end NAV |
| January 29, 2026 | All SAFE investments were still unconverted because SupPlant was examining an expansion of the SAFE raise | The fine print of the capital structure remained open after the target date |
| Report date | SupPlant said it had cash for the near term and was working to complete another round in Q1 2026 | The financing question was deferred, not resolved |
What Actually Went Up In 2025
The easiest number to miss here is not NIS 4.46 million but what sits inside it. In 2025 Smart Agro added $150 thousand to SupPlant, or about NIS 477 thousand. That is real cash, but it explains only a small part of the move. Most of the increase came from a positive revaluation of NIS 1.922 million. In other words, the holding did not more than double because the partnership injected a large amount of fresh capital. It more than doubled because the valuation model lifted it.
That does not mean the mark is detached from reality. It has anchors. SupPlant said its 2025 revenue grew by more than 50%. In addition, the year-end fair value was not set by impressionistic judgment but by an external OPM valuation using 44% volatility, a 3.6% risk-free rate, and 3 years to a liquidity event. So there is both an operating signal and a formal valuation exercise behind the number.
But the missing half of the sentence matters. Neither of those anchors is the same thing as a closed equity round that settled the question at an external price. The more-than-50% revenue growth is operating information supplied by the company, and the filing explicitly says it is not prepared under standard accounting rules and was not audited or reviewed. The external valuation is still a model translating those inputs and the capital structure into fair value. It is not a completed market transaction. So the correct conclusion is not that NIS 4.46 million is weak. It is that NIS 4.46 million is still a model value rather than a realized financing fact.
| What supports the mark | What it does mean | What it still does not mean |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth of more than 50% in 2025 | There is operating traction behind the story | It is not external price validation, and it is not audited evidence |
| External OPM valuation | The mark was built through methodology rather than guesswork | It does not replace a signed round or a completed conversion |
| Another $150 thousand invested at the end of 2025 | Existing investors are still supporting the company | It does not solve the need for additional financing |
Where The SAFE Stayed Open
This is where the filing becomes genuinely interesting. On December 30, 2025, the partnership invested another $150 thousand through SAFE, and the same disclosure said that all SAFE investments, including the $350 thousand invested in November 2024 and the new investment, were supposed to convert into shares on December 31, 2025. In that same context, the partnership was told that after the conversion it would hold about 2.6% of SupPlant's share capital.
The annual report itself sends the reader from that statement directly to note 18(a). That is not a footnote. It is an admission that the ownership number the reader is supposed to lean on at year-end was still tied to an event that had not been completed. On January 29, 2026, almost a month after the target conversion date, SupPlant told the partnership that all SAFE investments were still unconverted because it was examining a possible expansion of the SAFE raise.
This is a capital-structure yellow flag, not automatically a product yellow flag. What remained unresolved was not necessarily demand or commercialization. It was the layer where growth, financing, and security seniority converge into a clear ownership percentage. If the SAFE expansion is completed before conversion, it is economically reasonable to infer that the final percentage held by the partnership will depend on the scope and terms of that expansion. But the filing does not give the reader the data needed to calculate that outcome. There is no updated disclosure here on a new cap, a revised discount, or a refreshed post-expansion ownership figure.
That weakness matters because it lands exactly where investors try to connect value to a real share of the cap table. As long as the conversion is still open, the 2.6% figure is a target that was disclosed before completion, not a final ownership result.
What That Means For The NIS 4.46 Million Mark
The first temptation is to say that the delayed conversion pulls the rug out from under the mark. That is too simplistic. The year-end fair value was not built on the assumption of immediate liquidity. It was built on a model that assumes 3 years to a liquidity event. At the accounting level, a delay from late December into late January and beyond does not automatically erase the position.
The opposite temptation is to say the delay changes nothing. That is too simplistic as well. SupPlant was the largest positive valuation driver inside Smart Agro's portfolio in 2025, and in the same evidence set it is also described as a company still dependent on external financing, working to complete another round in the first quarter of 2026, with a SAFE that did not convert on schedule. So the mark does not collapse, but it also does not get the clean external confirmation the market would prefer.
The more precise reading is this: the NIS 4.46 million mark represents value that advanced faster than the capital structure around it. There is operating progress that explains why the model moved the holding higher. There is also an external valuation that gives the accounting number real weight. But the financing mechanism that was supposed to convert the SAFE layer into a cleaner equity fact remained open. That is exactly why the market may continue to apply a discount until the end terms become clear.
This also defines the real short-to-medium-term question. Not whether SupPlant sounds technologically interesting, and not whether it has customers, but whether the next financing event turns the 2025 year-end mark into something easier to underwrite. If the expansion closes and the conversion is completed without a material break in the current valuation logic, the year-end read becomes stronger. If the raise drags on, requires larger economic concessions, or keeps the capital structure blurry, the market will likely revisit the mark that has already been booked.
Conclusion
The main article asked whether Smart Agro's value layer was real or mostly accounting. This follow-up points to a more precise answer in SupPlant's case: the value is real in an accounting and operating sense, but it is not yet locked in as a clean equity fact.
The current thesis here is that the delayed SAFE conversion does not prove the NIS 4.46 million mark is wrong, but it does explain why the market may refuse to give it full credit. As long as SupPlant still depends on another round, and as long as the final post-conversion ownership percentage has not turned into a settled fact, the SupPlant holding remains more "a number with anchors" than "a value that has already passed the capital-structure test."
The strongest counter-thesis is that the market may be overstating the importance of the delay. If the 2025 year-end valuation was always built on a 3-year liquidity horizon, and if the possible SAFE expansion closes on roughly similar economics, a delay of several weeks may end up meaning very little for the position's underlying economics. That is a real possibility. But at the current disclosure point, readers simply do not yet have the data required to prove it.
What will shape the next read is not another broad story about potential but three very concrete details: whether the additional financing was completed, on what terms the SAFE converted, and what ownership percentage the partnership actually ended up holding once the dust settled. Until then, the 2025 mark looks more reasonable than skeptics may claim, but less clean than optimists would like.
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.