Orbit in the First Quarter: Kratos Merger Costs Turned the Report to a Loss as Backlog Fell
Orbit published its last periodic public report after completing the Kratos merger. The loss was mostly driven by one-off transaction expenses, but the quarter also showed lower margins, lower EBITDA and a smaller backlog despite new Israeli defense orders.
Orbit ended its life as a reporting company with a quarter that tells two different stories. On the accounting line, it moved from net profit of $3.3 million in the comparable quarter to a net loss of $6.8 million, mainly because of $8.6 million of other expenses tied to the completion of the Kratos merger. Excluding that item does not turn the quarter into a clean operating breakout: revenue rose 5.6%, but gross profit declined, gross margin fell to 36.1%, and EBITDA dropped to $3.4 million. Operating cash flow looked much stronger than the loss, mostly because trade receivables and contract assets fell by a combined $10.2 million. That improves the liquidity position after the transaction, but it does not by itself prove a higher earnings run rate. Signed backlog fell to $118.9 million, and backlog including framework agreements also declined versus both year-end 2025 and the comparable quarter. The last public report is therefore not just a technical closing chapter: it shows what Kratos acquired, a company with local defense demand, $45.6 million of cash and short-term deposits, but also a smaller backlog and weaker margins before public investors lose visibility into the next phase.
Company Overview
The company supplies advanced communications systems and related services to two main markets: defense and government on one side, and commercial and civilian customers on the other. The business is not reported across many operating segments. Management reports one operating segment: development, marketing and manufacturing of advanced communications systems.
The company's economic machine combines backlog, project execution and follow-on services. Product sales matter, but the quality of the business is mainly measured by whether orders convert into revenue at a healthy pace, at what margin, and whether customers pay without forcing the company to finance them through receivables or contract assets. That is why this quarter is interesting precisely because it cannot be read correctly through the net loss line alone.
The structural event has already happened. The merger with Kratos was completed on March 2, 2026, the company's shares were delisted on March 6, 2026, and the company ceased to be a reporting corporation. This is the last periodic report it is required to publish. The right read is therefore less about public-market pricing and more about the quality of the business at the moment it moved into private ownership.
Revenue Rose While Margins And Backlog Weakened
First-quarter revenue was $19.4 million, up 5.6% year over year. That is a positive figure, especially in an environment where the company describes local defense demand as favorable. During the period, the company also reported two local orders: about $4.8 million from an Israeli integrator for ground satellite communications systems, and about $3.2 million from the Israeli Ministry of Defense for satellite communications systems for mobile and fixed ground platforms.
The offsetting number is margin. Gross profit fell to $7.0 million from $7.2 million, and gross margin declined to 36.1% from 39.3%. Operating profit before other expenses fell to $2.2 million, versus $3.5 million in the comparable quarter. EBITDA, which excludes depreciation, amortization, financing and one-off expenses, also fell to $3.4 million from $4.5 million, and the EBITDA margin declined to 17.3% from 24.3%.
The geographic split makes the local-demand story less straightforward. Revenue in Israel fell to $8.9 million from $10.1 million in the comparable quarter. Europe increased to $4.6 million, and North and South America increased to $4.3 million. East Asia fell to $1.6 million. This can reflect project timing rather than weaker local demand. For a project business like this, revenue-recognition timing is part of the economics, and new local orders still need to convert into revenue and healthy gross profit.
Backlog connects demand to the next few quarters of revenue. Here the report is less comfortable than the headline of positive defense demand. Signed backlog at the end of March 2026 was $118.9 million, compared with $129.2 million at the end of 2025 and $127.5 million at the end of March 2025. Including $40 million of framework agreements that management expects to be exercised with high probability, total backlog fell to $158.9 million from $169.2 million at year-end 2025 and $171.0 million at the end of March 2025.
This is the most important proof point that the public will no longer see in future filings. The quarter's orders show that commercial activity continued after the Kratos agreement, and local defense demand is a tailwind. Still, backlog declined. For this quarter to read as the start of acceleration, the company would have needed to show not only individual orders but also backlog growth or margin improvement. Both measures weakened.
The external risk worth keeping in mind is the United States. The company has sales to the U.S. and describes uncertainty around tariffs on imports of goods from Israel. At this stage it does not see a material impact on its activity, but if tariffs settle at a high level or affect negotiation terms, the issue can move from regulation to margin. That matters more when North and South America already contributed $4.3 million of quarterly revenue.
Cash Came From Collection And Lower Contract Assets
The stronger part of the report is cash, but here too the components matter more than the headline. Operating cash flow was $7.1 million, compared with only $41 thousand in the comparable quarter. The main source was a $6.1 million decline in trade receivables and a $4.1 million decline in contract assets. Cash that had been tied to customers and projects returned to the balance sheet.
All-in cash flexibility looks different once cash and short-term deposits are separated. Cash and cash equivalents fell from $27.9 million at the end of 2025 to $18.3 million at the end of March 2026, mainly because the company placed $15.7 million in bank deposits. Including those deposits, cash and short-term deposits rose to $45.6 million, compared with $39.5 million at the end of 2025. The negative investing cash flow is therefore not ordinary operating cash burn. It is mostly a shift from cash to deposits.
Ordinary business investment was modest: property, plant and equipment purchases plus capitalized development costs were about $0.7 million. The balance sheet does not point to classic debt pressure. There is no bank financial debt layer driving the thesis. The main long-term liability is leases of $11.6 million, alongside current liabilities of $35.4 million. Cash and short-term deposits alone exceed current liabilities. The weakness in the report is not financing. It is the quality of the operating run rate: whether backlog starts growing again, whether gross margin recovers, and whether the strong cash flow was a one-quarter collection effect during the transition or a sign of better project discipline.
Conclusion
The company's final quarter as a reporting company is not weak simply because of the net loss. The loss was mostly created by Kratos merger expenses: grants and bonuses approved subject to the transaction, advisory and legal expenses, accelerated options and other completion-related costs. That one-off item explains the move to a loss and is not the main operating finding.
The more important read is that the business entered Kratos ownership with a mixed picture: local defense demand and new orders, stronger liquidity after collection, but also lower backlog and weaker operating profitability before the one-off expense. The strongest counter-thesis is that this is a short, project-driven quarter and that lower backlog and margins may mostly reflect timing rather than a structural change. Still, the last public data point sets a clear baseline: for the transaction to look like the acquisition of a growth engine, not only a quality defense asset in a variable project cycle, local and international orders need to rebuild backlog, and that backlog needs to convert into revenue at higher profitability. That will now happen outside the view of TASE shareholders.
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.