Doral Energy published its second-quarter report. Nofar Energy filed the same day, and both operate in renewable energy - which makes the comparison unusually sharp.
Errors or inaccuracies are possible. Spotted something that looks wrong? Write to me and I will correct it.
The Quarter
| NIS millions | The quarter | Share of revenue |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 323.8 | |
| Operating loss | -78.3 | -24.2% |
| Pre-tax loss | -126.1 | |
| Net loss | -95.0 | |
| Attributable to shareholders | -57.4 | |
| Non-controlling interests | -37.7 | |
| Basic loss per share | -NIS 0.28 | |
| Balance sheet total | 11,247.6 | |
| Shareholders' equity | 3,740.2 |
The gross profit line does not appear in the structured filing, and is therefore not presented here.
Two Companies, the Same Sector, the Same Day
| Q2 2026 | Doral Energy | Nofar Energy |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 323.8m | 202.2m |
| Operating margin | -24.2% | +52.0% |
| Pre-tax line | -126.1m | -23.0m |
| Bottom line | -95.0m | +16.1m |
| Balance sheet total | 11.2bn | 13.2bn |
| Leverage ratio | 3.0 | 4.8 |
And that is a gap that demands explanation, because it runs opposite to what you would expect.
Doral sold more - NIS 323.8 million against 202.2 - and lost money at the operating line, while Nofar, with turnover a third smaller, showed a 52% operating margin.
In power generation, where the running operating cost is very low, a negative operating margin cannot come from operating the facilities. It has to come from something else included within the operating line.
And in this sector the familiar candidates are two: development and sale of projects, where both revenue and cost are recorded above the operating line and can net out negative; or impairments of projects or assets.
The structured quarterly filing does not detail the composition of the operating line, so I do not assert which of them happened here - and I do not rule out a combination.
What can be said: the difference between the two companies does not come from the facilities. It comes from what each of them includes inside the operating line, and both call it "revenue".
And What Happened Below the Operating Line
From an operating loss of NIS 78.3 million, the pre-tax loss grew to NIS 126.1 million.
A further NIS 47.8 million was taken out.
At a company holding NIS 11.2 billion of assets on equity of NIS 3.7 billion, that is the running financing cost of debt-funded infrastructure - the same structure I described at Nofar, only at a different scale.
And then the tax line reduced the loss by NIS 31.1 million, to NIS 95.0 million net.
And the Split: 39.6% of the Loss to the Minority
Of a net loss of NIS 95.0 million, NIS 37.7 million is attributable to non-controlling interests.
A loss of NIS 57.4 million is attributable to Doral's shareholders.
And this is a point that is easy to miss when reading a loss-making report.
In a profitable report, minority interests reduce what reaches the shareholder. In a loss-making one they do the opposite - they absorb part of the loss.
Here they absorbed 39.6% of it.
And that comes from a structure common in the sector: energy projects are frequently built in partnership with financial or institutional investors, and each partner bears its share.
The meaning for the reader: at a company like this, both the loss and the profit should be read from the line "attributable to shareholders" rather than the line above it. And that is the same conclusion that recurred this week at Neto Holdings, at G City and at Delek Group.
The Balance Sheet
| Balance sheet total | NIS 11,247.6 million |
| Shareholders' equity | NIS 3,740.2 million |
| Leverage ratio | 3.0 to one |
NIS 11.2 billion of assets on quarterly revenue of NIS 323.8 million - a ratio of 35 times, lower than Nofar's (65 times) but of the same kind. This is an infrastructure company's balance sheet, not an operating company's.
הזווית שלי
דעה אישית של אילן אברמוב - לא ייעוץ ולא המלצה
What interests me here is that comparing the two companies proves a point I return to often: "revenue" is not one word.
Doral and Nofar operate in the same sector, filed on the same day, and both call their top line "revenue". And at one the operating margin is +52% and at the other -24%. That gap is too large to be operational.
And the plausible explanation is that the top line contains different things at each of them - and that is exactly the kind of difference the structured filing conceals, because it puts a uniform label on differing content.
And the practical conclusion I hold is that when you compare two companies from the same sector and get a gap that makes no operational sense, the first assumption should be that the measurement differs - not the business.
And what I would look for in the full accounts is the split between development and operation. A company that generates electricity and a company that builds and sells projects are two entirely different businesses with opposite profit profiles - and many in this sector do both, under one line.
(It is important to stress: this is my personal opinion only, and nothing herein constitutes a recommendation to take any action.)
