Ayee Argento: Tuqqi Between Valuation and Survival
At the end of 2025, Ayee Argento carried its Tuqqi holding at NIS 5.689 million, but by the report date Tuqqi was already described as having no cash balance, no planned further support from the partnership, and only a six-month window to raise outside capital. The gap between those two points is not a modeling preference. It is a survival test.
What This Follow-Up Is Isolating
The main Ayee Argento article argued that the core gap is not between portfolio value and market value, but between value recorded on paper and cash that can actually be reached in time. This follow-up isolates Tuqqi because that gap is most visible there. At the end of 2025, the partnership still carried Tuqqi at a fair value of NIS 5.689 million. In the same reporting package, though, Tuqqi is described as a company with no cash balance, no successful outside fundraising, and no intention by the partnership to inject more money.
What is actually working? The product is still alive, revenue did rise to $209 thousand in 2025 from $72 thousand in 2024, and monthly cash burn fell to $45 thousand from $81 thousand at the end of 2024. That matters. It shows Tuqqi really did cut expenses and try to resize itself to reality.
But that still does not solve the bottleneck. Tuqqi is not at risk because it lacks a product. It is at risk because it may run out of time. The directors' report says explicitly that if Tuqqi does not raise money within the next six months from a party outside the Argento group, it will examine whether to continue operating. At that point this stops being a theoretical valuation discussion. It becomes a survival window.
That chart is the heart of the story. Even after the revenue improvement in 2025, Tuqqi is still far from a point where operating activity can support itself without another financing event. The right way to read the valuation, then, is not "what is the business worth if it succeeds," but "how much value is left if the survival bridge breaks before the model matures."
The Survival Picture, Not the Slide Deck
The right framing here is all-in cash flexibility. Not future earning power, and not theoretical private-company value, but how much oxygen is left after real cash uses and how quickly new money has to arrive.
On that basis the picture is blunt:
| Signal | What the filings say | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Cash balance at the report date | Tuqqi has no cash balance | This is not a thin cushion. It is close to no cushion |
| Ongoing funding | Operations are being financed only from current customer collections | There is no real backup source without a raise |
| Partnership stance | The partnership does not intend to make further investments in Tuqqi | The carrying value is no longer backed by a partnership safety net |
| Related-party support | A private fund managed by the controlling shareholders financed Tuqqi in 2025 through a convertible loan of about NIS 1.5 million | The last bridge already came from inside the close circle, not from the market |
| Time window | If Tuqqi does not raise money from outside the Argento group within six months, it will examine whether to continue operating | The clock is already running |
| Partnership view of the holding | The partnership is examining different alternatives with respect to Tuqqi and/or its investment in Tuqqi | Even at the parent level this is framed as a search for options, not stability |
The extra layer here is that monthly cash burn did fall to $45 thousand. At the same time, the Tuqqi business section says that as of the report date, apart from limited customer revenue of a few thousand dollars per month, Tuqqi had no additional funds. So even after the cost cuts, the gap between what comes in and what goes out is still too wide.
That is also where it becomes important to separate "the company became leaner" from "the company can survive." Tuqqi did reduce its burn. But if the end point is still a company that needs outside money within six months, the cost cuts bought time only. They did not close the gap.
That chart shows why this is more nuanced than a standard warning note. There is no sharp operational collapse. There is a real attempt to lower the burn rate. But the end result still is not enough to move the company into the next phase without a fresh capital injection.
Even the First Raise Does Not Fully Stay Inside the Company
Note 5 adds a layer that is easy to miss if you stop at the line saying "Tuqqi needs a raise." In March 2026, the parties reached a settlement in litigation involving the partnership, Tuqqi, and other defendants. Under the settlement, if Tuqqi completes a $1 million raise, it must transfer $50 thousand to the plaintiff within 14 days. After that, for each additional $100 thousand raised, another $5 thousand must be paid, until a further $50 thousand has been paid.
That may look small, but economically it matters. It means the first $1 million, if it comes, is not a clean restart package. Part of it is already spoken for.
That $950 thousand number is notable because it is almost identical to the net debt used in the valuation model. That does not mean the entire first raise would go to debt service. It does mean Tuqqi first has to survive, then clean up part of the legacy overhang, and only then start proving the model again. So even a successful raise would not immediately close the survival gap. It would only move it one step forward.
How a NIS 5.689 Million Value Is Still Being Built
This is where the contradiction becomes sharp. The valuation does not ignore the weakness of 2025. On the contrary, it says explicitly that Tuqqi missed its 2025 revenue forecast, so the long-term growth assumptions were reduced and the specific risk premium was increased by 2 percentage points. According to the valuer, those two changes together cut the company value by about 26%, and the hit was only partly offset because Ayee Argento's ownership stake increased.
So even after a reset downward, the model still leaves Tuqqi with value. That is not because 2025 got stronger. It is because the model continues to put heavy weight on what is supposed to happen long after the current survival phase.
The DCF does three big things:
- It uses management's forecast for 5 years.
- It adds another 4 years of a gradual slowdown toward a long-term growth rate.
- It assumes that by the stable phase the company will already look economically very different from what 2025 showed.
The explicit numbers are these:
| Assumption | What was used | Why it is heavy |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 actual revenue | $209 thousand | A very small base |
| 2026 forecast revenue | $260 thousand | Even the first forecast year is still tiny |
| 2034 forecast revenue | $18.87 million | That is an entirely different scale |
| 2030 gross margin | 78.1% | It assumes a much more mature SaaS economics |
| Operating margin from 2030 onward | 32.8% | A sharp jump from a $1.013 million operating loss in 2025 |
| After-tax discount rate | 30.60% | High enough to acknowledge risk, but not enough to eliminate the value |
| Long-term growth rate | 3% | The model ends in steady state, not in a survival failure |
The problem is not that this path is impossible. The problem is that the accounting market and the operating reality are currently moving at two different speeds. In the model, Tuqqi gets 9 years to mature. In the directors' report, it gets six months to find an outside funder. That is the real gap.
The valuation adds one more layer. It sets enterprise activity value at $3.876 million, subtracts net debt of $950 thousand, and reaches company equity value of $2.926 million. From there, after allocating value across the capital structure and options, Ayee Argento's holding is valued at $1.783 million, or NIS 5.689 million.
That value can be understood as option value. If the company survives, completes a raise, and the pivot it made in the second half of 2025 and early 2026 actually works, value may still be there. But that is exactly the point: it is option value, not proven value.
The Question Is Not Whether Value Exists, but Under What Conditions
Tuqqi is not presented as a company that is already finished. It is presented as a company in a very sharp transition phase. Alongside the annual report, it is disclosed that in the second half of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026 Tuqqi made a strategic pivot from a general Future of Work platform toward a focused Compliance OS platform, and completed a full shift to a SaaS model including self sign-up, automated billing, and subscription management without project-style implementations.
That helps explain why the valuation has not given up on it. The model is not valuing Tuqqi only on 2025 economics. It is valuing the claim that 2025 was a transition year toward a new product framing and a new sales model. If that pivot fails, a large part of the value can disappear quickly. If it works, the model may still prove conservative.
But once all the documents are read together, the main point is hard to miss: even the optimistic case starts with an outside raise that does not yet exist, an internal support structure that has already stretched, and a very short time window. So in Tuqqi's case, the gap between valuation and survival is not a disagreement between a conservative reader and an optimistic one. It is the difference between a company that still gets time to prove itself and a company whose time may be running out.
Bottom Line
The right way to read Tuqqi inside Ayee Argento is not "just another small holding still resting on DCF." Tuqqi is the clearest case in the portfolio where a long-dated valuation model sits on top of a very short operating runway. There is some improvement in revenue, there is a meaningful reduction in cash burn, and there is a product the company still believes in enough to reframe and repackage. But at the report date there is no cash, no additional support from the partnership, and a six-month window to bring in outside money.
That is why the important question is not whether NIS 5.689 million is the "right" number. The important question is what has to happen for that number to remain relevant. In Tuqqi's case the answer is very simple: first a raise, then survival, and only then a renewed valuation discussion.
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.