Revenue 2025
$88.7M
-11.3% (Amos 3 retirement)
Net Income 2025
+$22M
First-ever positive
Amos 17 revenue
$39.9M
+16% YoY
Amos 17 backlog
$44M
Core growth engine
Active satellites
3
Amos 4, Amos 17 (through 2041)
Control dispute
IAI, 4iG, Eurocom
Open
1 Company Profile
Space-Communication (SCC, "Spacecom") is an Israeli satellite-communications company providing satellite capacity for television broadcasting, satellite internet, government communications and connectivity solutions. Spacecom is the only publicly traded satellite-communications company in Israel. Traded on TASE since 2005. Headquartered in Ramat Gan. Founded in 1989. Business model: leasing satellite capacity to customers — DTH broadcasting, cellular backhaul, VSAT, and government services. 2025 inflection: the first positive net income in the company’s history — $22M (versus a $21M loss in 2024).
| Satellite | Location | Role | Status |
|---|
| Amos 3 | 4°W | DTH (yes) | End of life 26.2.2026 |
| Amos 4 | 65°E | Asia DTH | End of service life 2028 |
| Amos 17 | 17°E | Africa + Middle East + Europe | 2041 — growth driver |
Source: 2025 Annual Report
2 Key Financial Observations
This summary is not a recommendation. It is a factual list of key financial metrics.
Performance — 3 Years ($M)
| Metric | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|
| Revenue | 99.2 | 100.0 | 88.7 |
| Net Income | -24 | -21 | +22 |
| YoY Growth | — | +0.8% | -11.3% |
Amos 17 — Growth Engine
| Metric | 2025 Value |
|---|
| Revenue | $39.9M |
| YoY Growth | +16% |
| Backlog | $44M |
| HTS (Ka) | 46% of 17E revenue |
| Partners | Africa, Middle East, Europe |
Missing data: Outcome of Control dispute (IAI, 4iG, Eurocom), budget for a new satellite to replace Amos 4, sensitivity to Starlink and LEO constellations.
3 Industry & Competitive Context
Satellite communications services — GEO. Global market ~$12B+. Rising competition from LEO constellations (Starlink, OneWeb).
| Company | Location | Advantage |
|---|
| SES | Luxembourg | GEO+MEO, global leader |
| Eutelsat | France | GEO + LEO (OneWeb) |
| Intelsat | USA | Global GEO |
| Starlink (SpaceX) | USA | LEO constellation — structural threat |
4 Risk Factors
| Risk | Context |
|---|
| Control dispute | IAI, 4iG, Eurocom — strategic uncertainty |
| Starlink and LEO | Structural threat to the GEO market for internet communications |
| End of Amos 4 service life (2028) | Requires a new or replacement satellite |
| Key customer dependence | DTH, military — contract termination = material impact |
| Revenue decline (-11.3%) | Mainly from Amos 3 retirement |
| Dependence on Amos 17 | Sole growth engine — risk |
| FX exposure | Revenue mostly in USD, Balance Sheet in NIS |
| Geopolitical | Security situation in Israel — impact on operations |
5 Analytical Lens — The Questions We Ask
In professional company analysis, the question is not "is this good?" but rather "through which lenses must this company be examined so that we do not miss what matters most?" At Bakshi Finance, every analysis passes through six lenses.
This framework is intended to structure analysis, not to produce an investment conclusion.
Growth
Amos 17 growing 16% Y/Y. How much does that offset the decline of Amos 3?
Profitability
First positive net income. How much is the result of operational efficiency versus one-off items?
Leverage
What is the current debt level and Debt/EBITDA ratio?
Competitive Position
Spacecom is unique in Israel. How threatening is Starlink?
Management Quality
The control dispute complicates matters. Who really runs the company today?
Business Complexity
Three satellites, five geographic markets. How should an investor construct an SOTP?
6 Scenario Framework
Scenarios are descriptive, not predictive. They outline possible conditions, not expected outcomes.
These scenarios carry no probability assessment, no preferred direction, and no expectation regarding which, if any, will materialise.
Constructive Scenario — if the following conditions hold:
The control dispute resolves with a strategic owner, Amos 17 continues to grow 15%+ annually, and a new satellite to replace Amos 4 is approved. Positive earnings continue.
Base Scenario — if current trends continue:
Revenue remains steady around $85-95M, operating profit improves but net results stay volatile. The control dispute continues.
Adverse Scenario — if the following risks materialise:
Starlink reduces GEO demand, the control dispute impairs decision-making, or Amos 4 ends service early. Losses return.
Scenarios describe conditions, not forecasts. There is no preferred direction and no probability assessment expressed in this framework.
7 How to Think About This Company
Spacecom is not a conventional satellite operator — it is a small Israeli company (relatively modest market capitalisation) competing against international giants (SES, Eutelsat, Intelsat) and facing the LEO revolution (Starlink). The real question in analysing SCC is not "is the industry challenging" (it is), but rather "will Amos 17 (service life through 2041) generate sufficient cash flow to make the company sustainably profitable before it needs to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a new satellite?"
The critical variables are three. First, Amos 17 growth rate. 16% Y/Y in 2025 is excellent. If it continues at 12-15% through 2030, the satellite will recoup its investment. Second, the outcome of the control dispute. IAI, 4iG, Eurocom — three parties that could take the company in different directions. Third, the Amos 4 replacement programme (2028). If the company successfully finances a new satellite, it continues operating; if not, it loses the Asia segment.
Where the analysis may go wrong. First error — treating the $22M profit as steady-state. This is the first positive year ever. Volatility is likely. Second error — ignoring Starlink. The impact of LEO on the GEO market is material and visible in decelerating growth. Third error — valuing the company on current performance alone without accounting for the need for a new satellite (CAPEX of hundreds of millions).
What distinguishes professional analysis of Spacecom. Professional analysis addresses three things: (a) the standalone NPV of Amos 17 (service life through 2041); (b) the outcome of the control dispute and the resulting strategy; (c) sensitivity to Starlink competition. These are not what one buys — they are what one asks before deciding.
The difference between surface-level analysis and professional thinking often lies in the variables that are not immediately visible.
The difference between surface-level analysis and professional thinking often lies in the variables that are not immediately visible.
8 Sources & Data
| # | Source | Date | Type |
|---|
| 1 | Space-Communication — Annual Report 2025 | March 2026 | Official — TASE |
| 2 | Quarterly Presentation | Quarterly | Official |
| 3 | maya.tase.co.il | April 2026 | Official — Stock Exchange |
Missing: Outcome of Control dispute (IAI, 4iG, Eurocom), budget for a new satellite to replace Amos 4, sensitivity to Starlink and LEO constellations.
