Eckerstein in the U.S.: Why the Loss Is Smaller but the Thesis Still Has Not Flipped
Eckerstein's U.S. activity did narrow its loss in 2025, but it did so on a smaller revenue base, with utilization down to 21% and waivers tied to 3 of 4 bank covenants. Until lower rates, fire rebuilding, and Los Angeles 2028 show up in actual orders, this is still optionality rather than a true turnaround.
What This Follow-up Is Isolating
The main article set the wider frame: Eckerstein's Israeli business recovered operationally, but cash friction and real-estate drag kept the group from looking clean. This continuation isolates only the U.S. unit, because this is the easiest place to overread a partial improvement. The loss is indeed smaller. That part is real. But it still does not mean the business crossed from a weak option into a proven turnaround.
The 2025 numbers show why. Revenue in the overseas industry segment fell to ILS 45.6 million from ILS 58.7 million in 2024, a 22.4% decline. Operating loss narrowed to ILS 16.3 million from ILS 19.1 million, and EBITDA loss improved to ILS 9.3 million from ILS 12.9 million. The fourth quarter showed the same pattern: revenue fell to ILS 9.1 million from ILS 14.8 million, while operating loss narrowed to ILS 4.3 million from ILS 6.0 million. The result is less bad, but the business base is smaller.
The investor presentation adds the wider context. Ackerstone's revenue fell from $27 million in 2022 to $13 million in 2025, and EBITDA moved from a positive $3 million to a negative $2.7 million. In other words, 2025 is better than the trough conditions of 2023 and 2024, but it is still far from a return to the scale that would justify calling this a real flip.
That is the core read. The loss is smaller, but the business that produces it is still much smaller than it used to be, and still negative at the EBITDA line.
The Loss Is Smaller, But The Proof Is Still Missing
The source of the improvement is fairly clear. The reduction in operating loss in 2025 came from lower selling and administrative expenses. That matters because it means the improvement has not yet come from a visible demand rebound. Even in the fourth quarter, where operating loss narrowed, revenue still ran at a very weak level.
This is exactly where a superficial read can go wrong. A business that is truly turning after a rate shock should eventually show more than a smaller loss. It should show a broader revenue base, better fixed-cost absorption, and improvement driven by the market rather than mainly by belt-tightening. As of year-end 2025, Ackerstone is not there yet.
There is a real operational improvement here, and it would be wrong to erase it. Good management should also know how to cut cost in a weak year. But when the loss gets smaller while revenue keeps shrinking, the thesis has not flipped. It has only been given more time.
Los Angeles 2028 Is A Tailwind Story, Not A Backlog
The presentation tries to sketch the way out. It describes a West Coast U.S. business with local production and supply, strong dependence on geographic proximity and availability, and market-growth potential in 2026 and 2027 from lower rates, the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics, and rebuilding neighborhoods that burned in 2025. That frame is coherent. It also fits the disclosed business model: Ackerstone operates in California and Arizona, serves both commercial and residential demand, and works through distributors, contractors, and architects.
But this is where the gap between narrative and contracted evidence matters. Orders in this business are overwhelmingly short-cycle, typically supplied within up to three months, and management and the board do not treat backlog as a material metric here. That is a critical disclosure. It means Ackerstone is not currently sitting on a signed pipeline that already embeds Los Angeles 2028, fire rebuilding, or rate relief. It is sitting on a relevant possibility, but not yet on proven demand.
The company itself adds one more conservative signal: in light of Ackerstone's financial results, the group is reviewing several strategic alternatives for the activity. That is not the language of a unit that has already come out of the hole. It is the language of a business where the path to recovery is still open-ended.
Competition also makes the story less comfortable. The company describes a market with many regional players, some owned by larger groups, and says its own share is negligible. So even if demand conditions improve, there is no embedded assumption that Ackerstone will automatically capture the upswing.
The only clear positive on the structure side is that the bottleneck is not capacity. Potential production capacity remained 21 thousand SQF in 2023, 2024, and 2025, and the company says that capacity is sufficient for its needs. What fell was utilization, from 28% in the prior two years to 21% in 2025. So the question is not whether the company needs more plants. It is whether it can fill the plants it already has.
As long as utilization sits at 21%, the Olympic story is still optionality. Only when it starts to show up in orders, revenue, and fixed-cost absorption can the thesis be described as a real turn.
The Real Test Still Sits With The Bank
The sharpest part of this story sits in Note 20 rather than in the presentation. The U.S. subsidiary committed to four main bank covenants: EBITDA-to-debt-service coverage above 1.25, debt-to-EBITDA not above 4.25, equity-to-assets of at least 30%, and EBITDA not below $1.5 million.
The simple table looks like this:
| Covenant | Threshold | Year-end 2025 read |
|---|---|---|
| EBITDA to debt-service coverage | Above 1.25 | Waiver received |
| Debt / EBITDA | Up to 4.25 | Waiver received |
| Equity / assets | At least 30% | No waiver disclosed |
| EBITDA | At least $1.5 million | Waiver received |
That matters because it shows how the business "complied" at year-end. Not through visibly comfortable headroom, and not through disclosed actual ratios that show cushion, but through a waiver tied to three of the four central tests. The company does not disclose the actual ratio values or the headroom against the thresholds, so the distance cannot be quantified. But it does not need to be. The fact that relief was needed on coverage, leverage, and the minimum EBITDA floor shows that the bank is still not reading 2025 as a proven turnaround year.
The good news is that this pressure is not spreading across the whole group. Ackerstein Industries, the main Israeli operating arm, met its financial covenants with the Israeli banks. So the problem is concentrated in the U.S. unit rather than in the group structure as a whole. The less comfortable part is that Ackerstone is not a costless option even as a separate layer. The bank holds specific liens on the U.S. company's real estate and equipment, together with a floating charge over share capital and goodwill. In addition, there is a roughly $3.8 million guarantee, of which $1.2 million is a short-term credit line.
Put differently, the U.S. business is not just a 2028 slide story. It is also a leveraged, encumbered, covenant-sensitive layer today.
What Has To Happen Before The Thesis Flips
The path from a smaller loss to a true turnaround is actually fairly clear, and it will probably be tested within the next 2 to 4 quarters.
Checkpoint one: the revenue base needs to stop shrinking. As long as Ackerstone reports less revenue than the prior year, the market will struggle to give much weight to improvement driven mainly by cost.
Checkpoint two: utilization has to move up again. The central constraint here is not capacity but volume. If 21% persists, it will be very hard to generate a real profitability turn.
Checkpoint three: EBITDA needs to move back above the covenant floor without waivers. Otherwise, even if the accounting loss keeps narrowing, the business will remain financially fragile.
Checkpoint four: the rate-relief, Los Angeles 2028, and fire-rebuild story has to move from presentation language into the report itself. Since this business does not disclose a material backlog, proof will have to come through orders, revenue, and fixed-cost absorption rather than through forward statements.
If those four things happen together, Ackerstone actually has an interesting operating-leverage profile: local production, an existing platform, and the ability to benefit from stronger demand without rebuilding the infrastructure from scratch. If they do not, 2025 will end up looking more like a time-buying year than a turnaround year.
Conclusion
The right read on Eckerstein's U.S. business at the end of 2025 is not "the activity flipped," but also not "nothing changed." Something did improve: the loss is smaller, and management showed it can cut cost and adapt to a weak environment. That still is not the same thing as a turnaround.
For the thesis to flip, three things need to show up together: volume recovery, higher utilization, and an exit from bank-waiver dependence. Until then, the U.S. activity remains a layer of real optionality with real infrastructure, but also with proof that is still missing.
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.