Follow-up on Orshi: What Was Bought for NIS 36 Million, and What Could Still Move in Purchase Accounting
The Top Capital deal did not turn only into NIS 12.9 million of goodwill. It also created NIS 4.2 million of amortizing assets, an initial NIS 1.152 million general credit-loss charge, and a gap that will keep shaping how the combined earnings should be read after closing.
The main article argued that Orshi's balance sheet consolidated faster than its earnings. This follow-up isolates the accounting mechanism inside that gap: what exactly Orshi received for NIS 36 million, why only part of that price became goodwill, and which profit-and-loss lines can still move because of the purchase-price allocation even after the closing date.
Three points stand out immediately. Not all of the NIS 36 million went out to a seller. NIS 17 million was paid to a selling shareholder for 24.63% of Top Capital, while another NIS 19 million was injected into Top Capital itself in return for another 27.54%. Goodwill also does not tell the whole purchase-price story. Note 4 shows NIS 56.0 million of identifiable net assets entering the balance sheet, alongside NIS 32.9 million of non-controlling interests measured at fair value, and only then NIS 12.9 million of goodwill. And the first hit to earnings was already partly embedded in the deal accounting. Note 6 shows an additional credit-loss expense, most of which comes from applying IFRS 9 to acquired assets measured at fair value on the acquisition date.
That matters because Orshi did not buy a passive asset. The presentation describes Top Capital as a financing platform for real-estate developers and purchase groups, with about 100 active projects. Another slide shows a net customer-credit portfolio of NIS 505 million and equity of NIS 148 million as of September 30, 2025. In other words, Orshi bought control of a leveraged lending platform, so the purchase accounting looks like the acquisition of a balance sheet and funding structure, not just of a brand or a list of contacts.
| Layer | Amount | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Shares bought from an existing shareholder | NIS 17.0 million | This is the part of the consideration that went out to the seller |
| Equity injected into Top Capital | NIS 19.0 million | This is the part that strengthened the acquiree itself |
| Cash already inside Top Capital at acquisition | NIS 19.07 million | It came in with the acquiree and offset part of the outward cash flow |
| Net cash outflow of the deal | NIS 16.93 million | This is the number note 4 shows after netting the acquiree's cash |
How NIS 36 Million Became NIS 12.9 Million of Goodwill
It is a mistake to read the deal as if NIS 36 million simply became goodwill. Note 4 first shows the acquired balance sheet: NIS 574.4 million of net customer credit, NIS 19.1 million of cash and cash equivalents, and on the other side NIS 422.4 million of bank credit and NIS 111.5 million of related-party loans. After all assets and liabilities, identifiable net assets come to NIS 56.0 million.
This is where the easy-to-miss point begins. Orshi did not acquire 100% of Top Capital. It acquired 52.17% on a fully diluted basis. On top of that, the company chose to measure non-controlling interests at fair value. So a meaningful part of the value recognized on day one sits under minority interests rather than under the cash consideration paid by Orshi. Only after that layer do you get to the NIS 12.9 million of goodwill. That does not make the goodwill small or irrelevant. It does mean it is not just a simple premium over identifiable assets.
There is more. Even inside the excess purchase-price layer, not everything is goodwill. Note 4 breaks out NIS 4.217 million of identified excess assets: NIS 482 thousand from the fair value of customer credit, NIS 1.601 million from customer relationships, and NIS 2.134 million from unused credit facilities. Their amortization lives are 1.5 years, 3 years, and 2 years respectively. The pro forma note then says that the excess of purchase cost over identifiable net assets, at about NIS 16 million, was allocated to customer relationships, another intangible asset, the fair value of customer credit, and goodwill. The difference between about NIS 16 million and the gross NIS 17.1 million stack is explained by the NIS 1.311 million deferred-tax asset also recognized in note 4.
That chart is the heart of the story. It shows that the deal did not only create goodwill sitting quietly inside a note. It also created finite-life assets that will keep running through the income statement. So even if the headline purchase price never changes again, the purchase-price allocation is not "finished" from an earnings-reading perspective. It has simply moved from the balance sheet into amortization and expense lines.
Why The First Consolidation Day Already Hit Credit Costs
Note 6 matters more than it first appears. In the movement table for the construction-finance activity, opening balances brought into consolidation stood at NIS 1.159 million, all of them in specific allowance. On top of that, 2025 recorded an additional credit-loss expense of NIS 1.293 million, made up of NIS 1.152 million in collective allowance and NIS 141 thousand in specific allowance. The year-end balance then reached NIS 2.452 million.
The footnote under that table is the critical detail. The company states explicitly that the NIS 1.152 million comes from the application of IFRS 9 to assets acquired in a business combination and measured at fair value on the acquisition date, and that immediately after the business combination the company recognized an expense for that general allowance. Put simply, part of the first hit to the credit-loss line does not reflect a fresh credit event that appeared after closing. It reflects the way the new book is opened on day one.
| Day-one credit-loss layer | NIS thousand | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Balances entering consolidation | 1,159 | The specific allowance that came in with Top Capital |
| Additional credit-loss expense | 1,293 | NIS 1,152 in collective allowance from IFRS 9 plus NIS 141 in specific allowance |
| Balance at year-end 2025 | 2,452 | This is the starting base from which 2026 begins |
The analytical implication cuts both ways. On the one hand, that expense is real and it does sit in Orshi's reported income statement. On the other hand, it should not be read as if December 2025 alone suddenly revealed fresh deterioration across the Top Capital book. Part of the number is day-one accounting, not only running economics.
What The Pro Forma Does Say, and What It Still Does Not Say
The pro forma figures are useful for framing the size of the combined platform, but they should not be read as if they were already fully clean earnings power that unquestionably belongs to shareholders. In the pro forma summary, 2025 financing income was NIS 139.2 million, net financing income after expected credit losses was NIS 73.5 million, and net profit was NIS 34.6 million. In 2024 the comparable figures were NIS 110.7 million, NIS 58.1 million, and NIS 20.9 million.
The problem is that pro forma is not just a mechanical addition of two companies. Note 4 to the pro forma statements lists four material adjustments: financing expense was calculated using an average rate of about 6.4% on prime-linked loans; a credit-loss expense was recognized to reflect the general-allowance rate that would have been relevant for 2023; the excess cost determined in the purchase-price allocation is amortized through the pro forma numbers net of deferred taxes; and one-off transaction costs of about NIS 800 thousand were fully adjusted out.
The directors' report adds one more important point: 2025 general and administrative expenses already include amortization of the excess cost created by the Top Capital acquisition. That means anyone trying to understand 2026 combined earnings cannot stop at financing income and financing expense. Part of the acquisition price will run through operating expenses, not only through a goodwill line hidden in note 4.
So the pro forma is useful, but in a narrower role. It says something about the size of the platform Orshi is trying to assemble, and about the level of earnings that would have appeared under a defined set of assumptions had the deal closed at the start of 2023. What it does not say is that this earnings figure has already fully settled into Orshi's normal economics without amortization drag, credit-cost noise, or accounting sensitivity.
What Could Still Move From Here
This is exactly where the main article's thesis comes back in. The balance sheet already jumped in one day, but earnings still need to pass through several layers before they look clean. The three important ones are these:
First: amortization of the excess-cost assets. Customer relationships, unused credit facilities, and the fair-value layer on customer credit already received useful lives of 1.5 to 3 years. So part of the future drag on earnings was effectively locked in on the acquisition date.
Second: the credit-loss line. 2026 begins from a base that already includes a first-day collective allowance charge of NIS 1.152 million. If the total expense stabilizes, that will be one reading. If it keeps rising, that will be a very different read on book quality.
Third: goodwill. The NIS 12.9 million of goodwill will not be amortized each quarter, so the justification test shifts to Top Capital's future performance rather than to automatic expense recognition. Put differently, the goodwill line will not weigh on earnings every quarter, but it will remain an open question on the quality of the earnings power that was bought.
The bottom line is that NIS 36 million did not buy only shares. It bought control of a developer-finance platform, an equity injection into the acquiree, a goodwill layer, a finite-life asset layer, and a first accounting expense that was already recorded on consolidation day. So the next important question is not whether the price "looks cheap" or "looks expensive" in the abstract. It is whether the acquired platform can start generating enough clean net financing income and stable credit performance for the gap between the balance sheet and the earnings statement to narrow rather than stay open.
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.