Barak: How Stable Is the Fee Model When One Fund Carries the Business
Barak posted a sharp fee-income jump in 2025, but almost all of the AUM increase came from market moves rather than broad new inflows. When one leveraged fund holds about NIS 176 million and generates 59% of mutual-fund revenue, the fee model is still narrower than the headline suggests.
The main article already established that Barak is concentrated. This continuation isolates the more important question: did 2025 really prove that Barak built a stable fee engine, or did the company simply enjoy an almost perfect year for one leveraged fund while the market moved sharply in its favor.
The headline numbers look strong. Mutual-fund management revenue rose to NIS 11.43 million from NIS 4.66 million, the average gross fee rate rose to 2.69% from 2.02%, and the average net fee rate rose to 2.34% from 1.67%. But the structure underneath those numbers is less reassuring: only NIS 5.0 million out of a NIS 212.3 million increase in managed assets came from net inflows. Everything else came from valuation gains.
That is the core issue. A savings platform that brings in broad new money is one kind of business. A platform whose assets jump mostly because the right investment style happens to be working is another. At Barak, at least as of year-end 2025 and the report date, the evidence still points much closer to the second model.
2025 Was a Market Year, Not a Fundraising Year
The entire Israeli fund industry had a strong backdrop in 2025. Industry assets under management reached about NIS 756.7 billion, with active traditional funds at NIS 232.4 billion, money-market funds at NIS 178.7 billion, index-tracking funds at NIS 128.9 billion, and ETFs at NIS 216.7 billion. At the same time, the TA-35 rose about 52% and the TA-125 rose about 50%. That is exactly the kind of environment that helps leveraged equity products.
Barak benefited from that backdrop, but the way it benefited matters more than the fact that it did. Managed assets in its funds rose from NIS 202.3 million to NIS 414.6 million. That looks like organic scale until the bridge is unpacked: net creations were only NIS 5.0 million. In other words, just about 2.4% of the annual increase came from new money. The remaining NIS 207.3 million came from valuation changes.
This is not a footnote. When almost all of the jump comes from market value changes, fee income rises on inflated asset values, not on a broad base of new client money. That still produces real revenue, but it is revenue whose durability depends much more on the market environment and on that investment style staying on the right side of the trade.
The move in the average fee rate reinforces that reading. The average gross fee rate rose to 2.69% from 2.02%, and the average net fee rate rose to 2.34% from 1.67%. The gap between gross and net stayed at 0.35 percentage points in both years. In practical terms, the shift toward higher-priced products translated almost entirely into net revenue. Once assets moved into more expensive funds, Barak kept almost all of the benefit.
When the Lead Fund Is Also the Revenue Engine
The concentration is double-layered. It sits in both assets and revenue. Barak Ultra Banks x3 reached about NIS 176 million of managed assets, with a 3.6% management fee and a 0.3% front-end addition rate. That single fund alone accounts for 59% of the mutual-fund segment's revenue.
Once that is connected to the consolidated income statement, the picture becomes sharper. Mutual-fund management generated NIS 11.43 million of revenue in 2025, while portfolio management generated only NIS 87 thousand. That means dependence on the lead fund does not stay inside one segment. It reaches almost the entire company. This fund is not just a successful product. It is effectively the economic center of Barak.
| Focus | Figure | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Mutual-fund management revenue | NIS 11.43 million | This is almost the entire group's revenue base |
| Portfolio-management revenue | NIS 87 thousand | There is no meaningful diversification cushion outside funds |
| Ultra Banks x3 | About NIS 176 million of AUM | Roughly 42% of fund AUM sits in one product |
| Fund share of segment revenue | 59% | The revenue base is narrower than the AUM headline implies |
| Net creations in 2025 | NIS 5.0 million | Growth did not come from broad new-money fundraising |
So any discussion about fee stability has to pass through one question: did Barak build a broad fee platform, or did it build a concentrated exposure to one leveraged product that happened to fit a very strong year for its strategy. Right now, the evidence supports the second interpretation much more than the first.
The Problem Is That the Alternative Mix Is Cheaper
One easy response would be to say that if the flagship fund is too concentrated, Barak simply needs to spread assets across a wider shelf of products. That is only a partial answer. The reason is that the alternative products on the shelf do not carry the same fee economics.
The new money-market fund charges 0% management fees. The bond funds charge 0.75% to 0.8%. The broad equity funds and the flexible fund charge 1.8%. By contrast, Ultra Banks x3 charges 3.6%, and the leveraged strategy fund charges 3.8%. So even if Barak succeeds in diversifying its asset base toward more defensive or general products, it will not automatically preserve today's fee yield on each shekel of assets.
This is Barak's core paradox. If the money stays in the flagship fund or in similar products, revenue intensity stays high but stability stays weaker. If the money migrates into more defensive products, stability may improve but fee yield is likely to fall. That is why the 2025 revenue jump cannot be treated as if it were a portable run-rate across any plausible diversification path.
That point is reinforced by the industry setting. Fee levels across the industry have been rising, and more than 200 funds announced fee increases effective in 2026. But fee increases are only permitted once a year, and the report also notes that investors respond to both fee increases and fee cuts. In other words, this is not an environment where managers can keep repricing upward every time a product gets hot. Sustaining fee income requires either very strong performance, strong client stickiness, or a broad enough product shelf to absorb rotation without hurting revenue per unit of assets too badly. Barak has not yet proved that.
The Shelf Is Broader, But It Is Still Not Balanced
As of the report date, 11 of Barak's 18 funds belong to the leveraged and strategy category. That is not just a classification detail. It is a statement about the structure of the business. Barak has not yet built a balanced shelf in which one leveraged flagship sits next to several sticky, lower-volatility asset engines. It has built a shelf that is still clearly tilted toward the same family of products that worked in 2025.
That matters in competitive terms as well. There are about 37 funds operating in the leveraged and strategy category. So Barak clearly found a strong revenue pocket, but it is not operating there alone. When the business is this tilted toward one category, stability depends not only on the market staying supportive but also on Barak staying visible inside a crowded product set.
What is working at Barak is clear: in 2025 the company proved it can translate a favorable market, the right product, and high pricing into a strong revenue line. What is still missing is proof that those economics can hold when the market cools, when client money looks for more defensive parking places, or when diversification happens through lower-fee products.
Conclusion
Barak does not yet look like a broad and stable fee platform. It looks like an investment house that built one very strong leveraged product and rode it through an excellent market year. That is a real achievement, but it is not the same business quality.
Current thesis: Barak's fee income improved sharply in 2025, but it still rests on a combination of a rising market, one especially expensive product, and a product shelf that remains tilted toward the same category. If Barak wants to prove that this is a more durable franchise, it will have to show broader net inflows, lower dependence on one fund, and diversification that does not erase the fee yield on assets.
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.