Shoham Bizness in 2025: The Book Grew, but the Test Has Moved to Credit Quality and Funding

Understanding the Business

Shoham Bizness is first and foremost a check-discounting business with a public and bank-funding layer, and only then a broader non-bank credit story. That matters because 96% of 2025 financing income came from discounting checks and only 4% from loans. A superficial read of a NIS 978 million net credit book can make the company look like a diversified lender. In reality, the economics still depend mainly on three variables: pricing the spread correctly, keeping funding available, and stopping borrower and drawer deterioration before it turns into a full collections and collateral-management issue.

What is working now? The company is still growing activity, bank funding expanded, Series D was fully repaid, Series E grew to NIS 360.1 million, the rating remained Baa2 with a stable outlook, and equity rose to NIS 219.3 million. This is not a company that has been pushed out of the system. On the contrary, funding is still available to it.

But the picture is not clean. The center of gravity has shifted from whether the company can grow to whether it can preserve credit quality while it grows. Impaired balances rose to NIS 89.4 million from NIS 62.9 million, balances with a significant increase in credit risk rose to NIS 23.1 million from NIS 9.8 million, and credit-loss expense jumped 56% to NIS 18.3 million. At the same time, cash used in operating activities reached NIS 84.8 million. In other words, Shoham is still expanding the book and the profit line, but it is doing so with weaker credit indicators and a high dependence on external funding staying open.

That means the active bottleneck today is not demand. The company itself describes a competitive market where transactions remain available. The real bottleneck is the combination of credit quality and funding: how fast the book can grow without pushing more balances into higher-risk buckets, and how much room remains to fund that growth without eroding the cushion, especially while the company keeps paying dividends.

Scale also matters for the screen-first read. The equity market value is around NIS 300 million based on the latest market snapshot, against NIS 219.3 million of equity and a net credit book of almost NIS 1 billion. This is a relatively small-cap listed company managing a much larger balance sheet than its market value suggests. That raises the sensitivity to any move in credit quality, funding, or capital allocation.

Shoham’s economic map at the end of 2025 looks like this:

Those charts capture the tension. There is growth, but the book is still heavily tilted to real estate and infrastructure, and profit did not grow at the same pace as financing income.

Events and Triggers

Funding expansion looks positive, but it also shows who is financing the growth

The clearest positive move in 2025 was the broader funding base. The company expanded Series E in February and July and added a combined NIS 191.6 million par value. At the same time, bank credit lines increased to NIS 700 million, and in December a third bank entered with a NIS 100 million line. That is a material improvement because Shoham exited 2025 with a much broader funding stack than it had a year earlier.

But this also makes the economic point clearer. When a credit company grows quickly, the relevant question is not only whether it succeeded in raising funding. It is whether it must keep raising more funding just to preserve the pace. At Shoham, the answer is still yes. The book grew, and that growth came alongside larger bond funding, larger bank lines, and continuing use of non-bank credit suppliers.

Repaying Series D cleans up the structure, but does not remove funding dependence

Series D was fully repaid on December 31, 2025. That is a clean and constructive move. It leaves the company with one public bond series, Series E, and a simpler maturity profile: NIS 72 million in July 2026, NIS 72 million in July 2027, and NIS 216 million in July 2028. That is easier to read and less cluttered than running two overlapping series.

But repaying Series D does not make Shoham funding independent. It simply shifts the center of gravity to a different mix of bank credit, Series E, and non-bank credit providers. The structural cleanup is real. It just does not solve the funding question on its own.

The chart shows the change clearly. Shoham replaced part of its other credit with a mix of more public debt and more bank funding. That looks sturdier, but it also makes the company more exposed to debt-market conditions and bank appetite.

Dividend flow continues, and that is also a capital-allocation choice

During 2025 the company distributed NIS 20 million in four quarterly dividends of NIS 5 million each. After the balance-sheet date, on March 26, 2026, it approved another NIS 5 million dividend. Formally, the company passes the tests: distributable retained earnings stood at NIS 41.1 million at year-end, and management says all covenants are met. Economically, though, this is still an assertive choice for a lender that is experiencing higher credit-loss expense and negative operating cash flow.

That is not an automatic criticism of the dividend itself. A dividend can signal confidence in book quality and funding access. But in Shoham’s case it also sharpens the question of whether the company is prioritizing ongoing payout over building a thicker equity cushion.

Controller support helps, but the support is small relative to the balance sheet

After the balance-sheet date, a private placement to controlling shareholder Eli Nidam was approved for 500,000 shares at NIS 8.60 per share, or NIS 4.3 million in total. That is a positive signal at the sentiment level. A controller putting money into the company supports the view that funding remains open and that there is no immediate retreat.

But the scale matters. Against a NIS 978 million net credit book, NIS 356.4 million of bonds, and NIS 700 million of bank lines, a NIS 4.3 million equity injection is a modest addition to capital. It helps at the margin. It does not change the risk picture by itself.

Efficiency, Profitability, and Competition

The most important number in the 2025 report is not that financing income rose 25%. It is that net profit rose only 11%. That gap tells the whole story. The company still knows how to grow, but the cost of growth moved higher.

Financing income rose to NIS 168.0 million from NIS 134.8 million. Financing expense rose faster, by 31%, to NIS 78.5 million. Net financing income rose to NIS 89.5 million, but credit-loss expense jumped to NIS 18.3 million from NIS 11.8 million. That left NIS 71.2 million of net financing income after credit losses, versus NIS 63.0 million a year earlier. This is still an improvement, but a much milder one than the top-line growth suggests.

Where the book actually grew

There is a less obvious insight inside the book mix. Growth did not mainly come from the classic direct discounting channel. Gross carrying value in the direct deferred-check channel slipped slightly to NIS 481.5 million from NIS 489.0 million. By contrast, collateral-backed credit, mainly secured by real estate and engineering equipment, rose to NIS 497.5 million from NIS 398.9 million. In other words, a large part of the growth came from a shift into a more secured book, not from deeper expansion of the old pure discounting model.

That matters in both directions. On one side, it is a defensive move. The company explicitly talks about thicker collateral and book improvement. On the other side, collateral-backed credit is not automatically simpler credit. It moves part of the risk into the realization, collection, and legal-enforcement stage. Once the company starts acquiring a property through collateral realization from a debtor, it is already clear that the collateral is not just a theoretical cushion. It is also an operational process.

Credit quality has already weakened, not just the fear of it

The softer credit-quality picture is not just a concern. It is already visible in the numbers. Impaired balances rose to NIS 89.4 million from NIS 62.9 million. Balances with a significant increase in credit risk rose to NIS 23.1 million from NIS 9.8 million. The total provision ratio on the book increased only slightly to 2.55% from 2.48%, but that mild-looking change hides a much sharper shift in composition.

The longest tail is where the issue becomes harder to ignore. Balances more than 180 days past due reached about NIS 99.5 million at the end of 2025, versus about NIS 69.9 million at the end of 2024. Of that amount, the company says about NIS 21.5 million above 180 days was still not classified as impaired because it believes collection remains likely. That is the key line to watch. The company is not saying the balance is lost. It is saying that a meaningful part of the book is already deep in arrears, but still sits outside the impaired bucket.

That can turn out to be right. But this is exactly the layer the market should follow in the next reports. If those balances are collected, 2025 will look like a year of tightening and cleanup. If they continue to roll forward, the issue will move from risk measurement into a full credit-quality problem.

There is also a fair counterpoint

The read should stay balanced. Not every metric moved in the wrong direction. Debt under arrangement fell to NIS 36.2 million from NIS 54.2 million. Bad-debt write-offs were NIS 16.0 million versus NIS 19.6 million in 2024. In addition, fourth-quarter credit-loss expense dropped to NIS 3.5 million from NIS 5.5 million in the third quarter, and net profit in the fourth quarter still stayed above NIS 10.7 million. The full-year picture weakened, but year-end did not look like a fresh collapse.

That means 2026 is not opening from panic. It is opening from uncertainty. The real question is not whether there is already an immediate breakdown, but whether 2025 was a peak year of cleanup or the beginning of a longer deterioration trend.

Cash Flow, Debt, and Capital Structure

This is where cash framing matters. The right lens for Shoham today is all-in cash flexibility, not normalized cash generation. The reason is simple: the central question is not what the business can produce before growth, but how much flexibility remains after the real cash uses are counted.

Under that lens, 2025 looks materially tighter than the income statement. Cash used in operating activities was NIS 84.8 million. Cash used in investing activities was only NIS 0.03 million. Only NIS 85.0 million of cash from financing activities kept cash almost unchanged, at NIS 81.1 million at the end of 2025 versus NIS 80.9 million a year earlier.

This is not just a presentation issue. It is the central economic point. Profit is not currently funding book growth. Banks, bondholders, and other external funding sources are.

The funding cushion exists, but much of it is tied into the system

The positive side is that the company does have a real funding architecture. At the end of 2025 it carried NIS 356.4 million of public bonds, NIS 467.9 million of short-term bank credit, NIS 17.2 million of other credit, and NIS 219.3 million of equity. It also notes that about NIS 724 million of checks in collection are deposited with banks and serve as collateral for bank funding.

But this also clarifies what kind of liquidity this really is. A large part of the flexibility is not free cash. It is funding that sits on deposited receivables, 125% coverage requirements, and personal guarantees by the controller of up to NIS 25 million in favor of each of the three banks. Non-bank credit suppliers also rely on controller guarantees.

In other words, the system works, but it is still not fully detached from the controller. That is not necessarily negative. It just means that part of the stability of the funding structure still rests on Eli Nidam’s support and on the market’s willingness to keep funding him.

Covenants are met, but they should not be dismissed

Under the Series E trust deed, the company shows full compliance: equity to balance-sheet ratio of 21.9% against a 19% threshold, equity of NIS 219.3 million against a NIS 90 million floor, and maximum single-drawer exposure of 3.59% against a 5% cap.

The important point is not that the company is close to a breach. It is not. The important point is that in this business, equity is the raw material of growth. So even without any immediate covenant stress, dividends, equity injections, growth pace, and provisioning are tightly linked.

The real-estate asset on the balance sheet is also a collections signal

Note 7 adds another useful layer. During 2025 the company signed for a real-estate property at a price of NIS 3 million through the offset of a debtor balance secured by a first-ranking mortgage. This is not a large event in balance-sheet terms, but it does say something important qualitatively: part of collections has already moved into actual collateral realization, not only routine repayment.

That supports the view that thicker collateral is a rational strategy, but it also shows that this is not a costless fix. Once collateral becomes an investment property on the balance sheet, the company is no longer just discounting checks and extending credit. It is also managing realizations.

Outlook

First finding: 2026 opens as a proof year for book quality, not as an automatic breakout year. The reason is that the strong 2025 revenue and profit numbers came together with higher impaired balances, more exposure in higher-risk buckets, and higher credit-loss expense.

Second finding: the company has already built much of the funding layer required for continued growth, but there is still no proof that it can grow without leaning further on the balance sheet. Operating cash flow is negative, and book growth still consumes funding.

Third finding: the fourth quarter was calmer on credit-loss expense. That may be the beginning of stabilization, but right now it is only a first signal, not proof.

Fourth finding: the company’s assertive payout policy remains part of the thesis. As long as Shoham keeps paying dividends while expanding the book and absorbing higher provisions, the market will keep asking whether the capital cushion is being rebuilt fast enough.

What management is signaling

In the March 2026 presentation, management keeps talking about expanding the credit book, revenue, profitability, and return on equity, while improving customer quality through thicker collateral and widening funding sources. This is not survival language. It is disciplined growth language. But the repeated emphasis on collateral, short duration, and drawer dispersion also shows that management knows exactly where the friction is.

When a credit company repeatedly emphasizes underwriting discipline and collateral quality, it is effectively saying that the 2026 question is not whether demand exists, but what quality of demand it is willing to take.

What has to happen over the next 2 to 4 quarters

The first checkpoint is credit quality. Impaired balances and the significant-increase-in-risk bucket need to stabilize or at least moderate. If both lines keep rising, the explanation that 2025 was a growth-and-cleanup year will become much less convincing.

The second checkpoint is the real economic spread. The company needs to show that net financing income after credit losses can keep expanding even without another sharp jump in the book. The test is not just more assets. It is more net earnings power per unit of risk.

The third checkpoint is capital allocation. After NIS 20 million of dividends in 2025 and another NIS 5 million approved after the balance-sheet date, the market will watch whether payout keeps taking priority even if credit quality stays mixed.

The fourth checkpoint is funding. The company opened more lines, but the real test is whether it can keep growing without friction in the banks, the bond market, or collateral demands.

The quarterly chart matters because it also frames the counter-thesis. Profit did not crack late in the year. If anything, the company ended 2025 at a fairly stable quarterly level. That is why 2026 is not a distress story. It is a test of whether late-2025 stability marks the start of normalization or just one easier quarter.

Risks

Credit quality and the collection assumption

The main risk is that the balances already deep in arrears will eventually need more provisioning than the company currently assumes. When about NIS 21.5 million of balances above 180 days are still not classified as impaired, that is not automatically wrong, but it is a stance that requires proof in the next few reports.

Funding, dividends, and guarantees

Shoham is compliant with covenants, but it is still a lender that relies on a tight external funding system. Checks are pledged to banks, the controller gives personal guarantees, and the company continues to distribute cash. If credit markets tighten or if book quality forces banks to demand more, flexibility can narrow quickly.

Dependence on the controller and a small team

The whole operation runs out of one branch, with only 15 employees and stated dependence on Eli Nidam. On top of that, there is a meaningful layer of family members in operating roles, and related-party arrangements and compensation updates remain part of the picture. That is not necessarily a governance failure, but it does increase dependence on one person and a narrow management circle.

Sector concentration and pricing competition

44% of drawers are tied to real estate and 18% to infrastructure. That mix is fine as long as project flow remains healthy and contractors keep recycling activity. If one of the core sectors weakens, book quality can suffer even without one specific borrower blowing up. At the same time, the company openly says competition revolves around reputation, service, and fee level. That is a polite way of saying price is always on the table.

---

Conclusions

Shoham Bizness entered 2026 with a stronger funding structure than it had a year earlier, but not with a cleaner credit-quality profile. That is the core thesis. What supports it now is drawer dispersion, broader funding sources, the full repayment of Series D, and continuing profitability. What blocks an easier read is the increase in impaired balances, the rise in higher-risk exposure, and the ongoing dependence on open external funding and controller support.

Current thesis: 2025 proved that Shoham can grow and fund that growth, but 2026 will decide whether this is high-quality growth or growth that is starting to weigh on the book.

What has really changed is the center of the story. It is no longer enough to show that the book is growing and funding is available. The company now has to show that credit quality is holding up as well. This is no longer mainly a volume story. It is now a quality story.

The fair counter-thesis is that the company deliberately shifted toward a more collateral-backed book, wrote off bad debts, ended the year with a decent fourth quarter, kept its rating stable, and remains in compliance with every covenant. If so, 2025 may already include most of the cleanup and 2026 could look better.

What can change the market’s interpretation over the short to medium term is the combination of three datapoints: the trend in impaired balances, the level of quarterly credit-loss expense, and whether the company keeps paying dividends while the book continues to expand. This matters because in a check-discounting and non-bank credit business, business quality is measured not only by how much credit is produced, but by how much equity, funding, and collection effort it takes to produce it.

Over the next 2 to 4 quarters, the thesis will strengthen if impaired balances and the higher-risk bucket stabilize, if credit-loss expense does not reaccelerate, and if the company keeps widening funding without visible erosion of the equity cushion. It will weaken if the deep-arrears balances require another provisioning round, if cash distribution remains aggressive despite mixed credit quality, or if one of the central funding sources starts to tighten.