Liam Harish Asakim: The Project Pipeline Still Runs Through Controlling Shareholders
Liam is adding a tenant-management activity and the Lod project, but the first-quarter evidence says controlling-shareholder dependence did not disappear. It moved from direct loans into deal sourcing, early funding commitments, and the ownership layer.
Liam Harish Asakim is not showing a clean break toward independence in the first quarter. It is showing a new form of the same dependence that the previous analysis of controlling-shareholder support framed through services, guarantees, and owner backing. The interesting evidence is not the quarterly loss. It sits in the new pipeline: a tenant-management activity in which the company holds 67% through a subsidiary and commits to provide NIS 1 million a year for three years, and the purchase of 50% of a Lod project company from the controlling shareholders for NIS 5.355 million. Those are not side items for a small developer trying to build a broader project base. They show that the move into urban renewal still runs through layers close to the controlling shareholders: the source of the deal, the shareholders' agreement, the parent-company ownership structure, and early funding of a new activity. That is not automatically negative, because controlling shareholders can give a small developer access to deals and funding before the market gives it full credit. But until the company shows deals sourced outside that circle, independent bank financing, and an ability to fund growth without another related layer, the public platform still has not proven that it can stand on its own. The next proof points are a full economic estimate for Lod, movement from the tenant-management activity into a binding business outcome, and clarity on whether the parent-company ownership change actually changes the power map around the company.
Dependence Fell on the Balance Sheet but Returned Through the Pipeline
The quick read looks cleaner: current loans from shareholders and related parties fell to NIS 250 thousand at the end of March 2026, from NIS 20.7 million at the end of 2025. Even after adding the non-current balance of NIS 115 thousand, this is no longer the direct funding layer that stood at the center of the story at year-end. But the quarter does not show disengagement. It shows a shift to another layer.
That distinction matters in a small development company. Dependence on controlling shareholders is not measured only by how much money they lend the company at a specific date. It is also measured by where deals come from, who sits around the project shareholders' agreements, who funds the sourcing and tenant-organization stage, and whether the company can expand without leaning again on the same related-party circle.
The first quarter still does not provide enough independence. The company is adding new urban-renewal activity, but the two central events around the new pipeline do not yet prove that the platform is generating deals on its own. They prove that it can use the controlling-shareholder envelope to bring projects and activities inside the company.
Lod Adds Scale but Also Raises the Deal-Source Question
The more unusual transaction is the purchase of 50% of a project company in the Yeriho complex in Lod from the controlling shareholders, for NIS 5.355 million. The project company is advancing an urban-renewal project in a complex with 4 existing residential buildings and 64 apartments. Based on an approved plan, the existing buildings are expected to be demolished and replaced by 4 buildings above a commercial ground floor and public buildings, with 370 apartments, of which 306 will belong to the project company and 64 to the owners, plus a gross 1,400 sqm commercial boulevard owned by the project company.
This can become a meaningful addition to the pipeline, but it is not yet full economic proof. The purchase price is known, the number of units is known, and the base plan exists. The current disclosure still lacks a full estimate of costs, revenue, expected profitability, equity needs, bank financing, and timetable. Without those details, there is no basis to conclude that the company bought value at an attractive price. The current conclusion is narrower: the company brought in another project, and that project came from the controlling shareholders.
That is the difference between growing a backlog and building an independent platform. Backlog growth can also come through a controlling-shareholder transaction. An independent platform needs to show that it can source, fund, and advance deals on terms that let bondholders and shareholders judge the quality of future profit without relying on the identity of the sellers. In Lod, the next proof point is not the existence of the project. It is disclosure of the project economics and financing structure.
The Tenant Manager Is an Option, Not Proof of Independence
The second event is the establishment of a joint tenant-management activity in which the company holds 67% through a subsidiary. The activity is intended to identify, organize, and advance urban-renewal complexes, coordinate residents, and represent them before developers in project tenders. The company committed to provide an annual budget of NIS 1 million for three years, through a shareholder loan bearing 8% annual interest.
This is an attempt to build a channel that creates projects before the full development stage. That can be positive if the activity gives the company access to new complexes on attractive terms, or lets it participate in projects without immediately carrying the full development risk. At this stage, however, it is mainly a small recurring funding commitment, not a proven revenue source.
The issue is not only the size of the amount. NIS 3 million over three years is not a major liquidity threat against the company's cash, credit lines, and working capital. But the business direction matters: the company is not only adding existing projects. It is beginning to fund a sourcing and organization mechanism. If that mechanism delivers deals to the company on clear terms, it can strengthen independence. If it remains an early-stage activity without binding projects or economic disclosure, it will simply add another activity layer that requires more patience and more funding before value appears.
The Parent-Company Ownership Change Leaves Control in the Analysis
After the balance-sheet date, the shareholders of the parent company changed. Before the change, the parent was held by Liam Engineering Ltd. at 50%, L.K. Alarad Holdings Ltd. at 25%, and K.A.K Holdings and Entrepreneurship Ltd. at 25%. After the change, A.S.I.B Holdings Ltd. holds 45%, Liam Engineering Ltd. holds 5%, L.K. Alarad holds 25%, and K.A.K holds 25%. The controlling shareholders of the company remain Yariv Lerner, Achikam Cohen, and Lior Cohen.
For investors, this does not prove a material change of control. It keeps the ownership layer inside the analysis. Together with the Lod purchase and the tenant-management funding commitment, the company’s growth still looks hard to separate from the way its controlling shareholders organize projects and holdings around it.
The next evidence should be evidence of independence: a new project sourced outside the controlling shareholders, fuller disclosure of Lod's economics, or progress by the tenant-management activity into an agreement that gives the company a clear economic right. Until then, the pipeline growth looks real, but its quality still depends too much on the controlling-shareholder envelope and not enough on a public platform that can stand alone.
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.