Mercantile Hanpakot: The Series D Runoff Map After The Shelf Prospectus Ends
After the November 2025 decision not to publish a new shelf prospectus, Mercantile Hanpakot was left with only Series D and with a deposit at the parent bank that still tracks the liability almost one-for-one. This follow-up maps what remains in the series and why the real question from here is no longer fresh issuance but clean amortization through 2030.
The main article already established that Mercantile Hanpakot moved in 2025 from an issuance platform into a repayment path. This follow-up isolates the question that remained after the November 2025 decision not to publish a new shelf prospectus: what exactly is left in Series D, how tight the back-to-back structure against Mercantile Discount Bank still is, and what changes once the annual report is approved only after the shelf itself has already expired.
The core point is straightforward: after the shelf prospectus ended, Mercantile Hanpakot no longer needs to be read as a company that may return to the market with a fresh series. It now reads much more like a shrinking credit wrapper, with one public bond series, a matched deposit at the parent bank, and interest-rate sensitivity that almost offsets across the two sides. From here, the real question is no longer whether there is issuance optionality left. It is whether the repayment path of what has already been issued stays clean through January 2030.
What Is Actually Left In Series D
Series D was issued in two stages in January and July 2015, for aggregate par value of NIS 696.8 million. As of December 31, 2025, par outstanding stood at NIS 232.7 million. In other words, about 66.6% of the series had already been repaid in par terms, and only about 33.4% remained. That matters because after the November 2025 decision not to publish a new shelf prospectus, this final third is now almost the whole public-market story left inside the company.
The series schedule calls for 15 equal annual principal payments, from January 30, 2016 through January 30, 2030. In practical terms, by the end of 2025 only five principal dates were still left before final maturity. Based on the year-end par balance, that implies a nominal pace of roughly NIS 46.5 million per remaining stop, before future interest and indexation. That figure is not meant to forecast the exact cash payment each January, but it does show just how measured and finite the remaining path has become.
This path is no longer theoretical. On January 30, 2025 the company made a partial repayment of Series D, including interest and indexation, totaling about NIS 58 million. After the balance-sheet date, on January 30, 2026, it made another partial repayment totaling about NIS 59 million. So by the time the statements were approved on March 1, 2026, the reader was already looking at a company that had entered another live repayment year, not at one still waiting to decide whether it would refinance.
The Matching Structure That Holds The Path Together
Mercantile Hanpakot does not build its repayment path through business flexibility, asset sales, or renewed capital-markets access. It builds it through structural matching. The issuance proceeds were placed with Mercantile Discount Bank on similar repayment and linkage terms, in a back-to-back structure, with an added spread of 0.08%. That is why the right discussion here is less about the income statement and more about the quality of the match between the deposit asset and the bond liability.
The December 31, 2025 balance sheet shows how tight that match remained even after years of amortization:
| Layer | Deposits at the parent bank | Series D bonds | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current portion | NIS 58.7 million | NIS 58.5 million | The next 12 months are almost pre-matched one-for-one |
| Non-current portion | NIS 228.7 million | NIS 228.4 million | The longer tail of the path is still tightly aligned |
| Total fair value | NIS 274.1 million | NIS 273.8 million | Interest-rate effects remain almost symmetrical |
The sharpest datapoint actually comes from the board's sensitivity table. A 5% rise in interest rates reduces the fair value of the long-term deposits by NIS 636 thousand, but increases the fair value of the bonds by NIS 623 thousand, leaving a net loss of only NIS 13 thousand. Even in the 10% scenario, the net change is just NIS 25 thousand. That is already more than a general statement about rough matching. It is a structure in which interest-rate exposure nearly closes on itself.
Note 10 reaches the same conclusion from another angle. The carrying value of the long-term deposits, including current maturities, was NIS 287.4 million net of the expected credit-loss allowance, against fair value of NIS 274.1 million. On the liability side, the bonds stood at NIS 286.9 million against fair value of NIS 273.8 million. In other words, both sides carry almost the same discount to fair value, and the net gap between those two discounts is only about NIS 67 thousand. That is the heart of this continuation: the company is not leaning on one asset that materially runs ahead of or behind the liability. It is leaning on a nearly symmetrical pair that keeps shrinking together.
The Support Is Real, But It Still Sits At The Parent Layer
That matching does not make the series a pool isolated from the group. The main protection is an explicit undertaking by Mercantile Discount Bank to pay holders the full amounts required to redeem the securities issued by the company. In a runoff structure, that support layer matters more than any discussion of growth. But it also has a clear limit: rights under those undertakings rank equally with similar holders, while remaining subordinated to the bank's other creditors.
That distinction matters. It means Series D is not protected by some external collateral pool detached from the bank. Its safety still rests on the credit quality of Mercantile Discount Bank itself, on its rating, and on the deposit and bond continuing to move in sync. That is why the reaffirmation of the ilAAA rating in 2025, and the shift from a negative outlook to a stable one in November, matter differently here than they would in a company trying to reopen issuance. They do not reopen a growth option. They mainly confirm that the support layer of the repayment structure stayed intact.
The expected credit-loss allowance on the deposits also needs to be read this way. At the end of 2025 it stood at NIS 112.8 thousand, versus NIS 331.6 thousand at the start of the year, and the annual movement contributed NIS 218.8 thousand to financing income. That is not a side detail. In a company with a base spread of 0.08%, even a number this small changes reported profit. So once the shelf expires, the focus naturally shifts away from whether the company can issue again and toward whether the parent-bank support layer remains stable enough for the allowance not to become a material source of noise again.
What The End Of The Shelf Prospectus Actually Changes
On January 29, 2025 the company received an extension of its shelf prospectus through February 7, 2026. Had the company chosen to publish a new shelf prospectus, that extension could still have been read as an optional bridge for continued use of the public market. But on November 5, 2025 the company's board decided not to publish a new shelf prospectus, and on November 11 the bank's board ratified that decision. From that point onward, the shelf extension stopped being strategic optionality and became a known finishing line.
The practical meaning is even sharper because of timing. The annual report was approved on March 1, 2026, after the shelf had already expired on February 7, 2026 and after the January 2026 partial repayment had already been made. So this is not a report describing a company with a half-open funding window. It is a report published in a post-shelf world, where the company is left with a shrinking series and with a repayment structure whose only real question is how cleanly it will keep running.
From here, the three checkpoints that matter most are:
- Continued January repayments without slippage from the orderly pace of the series.
- Stable ratings and a clean support layer at Mercantile Discount Bank.
- No widening gap between the deposit and the bond, whether through interest-rate sensitivity, the expected credit-loss allowance, or an unexpected strategic change at group level.
Bottom line: the end of the shelf prospectus did not create a crisis, but it did close the optionality. Mercantile Hanpakot is left with Series D and with a back-to-back structure that still looks right both in fair-value terms and in interest-rate sensitivity terms. That makes the remaining years through 2030 years of repayment discipline, not funding strategy. As long as Mercantile Discount Bank remains the strong anchor of the structure, this is a near-mechanical runoff. If the parent layer weakens, it will become clear very quickly how little is left here beyond that match.
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.