Gross premiums — H1 2026
NIS 2,595M
vs 2,723M in H1 2025
Core operating profit
NIS 279.8M
vs 250.8M · a management-defined measure
Comprehensive income attributable
NIS 115.5M
vs 130.9M in H1 2025
Return on equity (annualised)
17.1%
vs 30.4% in H1 2025
Assets under management
NIS 19.3B
vs 15.3B at end-2025
Equity attributable to shareholders
NIS 1,463M
vs 910M at 30/6/2025
Market cap
NIS 2,003M
1,331 agorot · Bizportal 25/8/2026
P/E ratio
7.6
Bizportal 25/8/2026
P/B ratio
1.37
Market cap / equity attributable
Solvency ratio — Ayalon
137%
31/12/2025 · with transitional provisions
Contractual service margin (CSM)
NIS 1,125M
Net · vs 1,058M at end-2025
Holding in Ayalon Insurance
59.11%
Ayalon holds 100% of weSure Insurance
1 Company Profile
Wishore Globaltech (WSHR, security 1173228) is an Israeli holding company focused on insurance and asset management. In 2022 Wishore transformed from a small shell into a material insurance group — in June 2022 it acquired control of Ayalon Insurance, which has since formed the group’s primary activity. Traded on TASE. Headquartered at Bet Ayalon Insurance, Ramat Gan. Group structure: Ayalon Insurance (core activity — general + life + health), Wishore Insurance (additional activity), Hourly (international operations), and insurance agencies. Accounting note: 2025 statements are reported under IFRS 17 — not directly comparable to 2023 (prior standard). 2022 includes Ayalon for six months only. Revenue model: insurance premiums (general + life) + investment income on policyholder funds + management fees + agency commissions.
| Group Structure | Description |
|---|
| Ayalon Insurance | Core activity — General + Life + Health insurance |
| Wishore Insurance | Additional insurance activity |
| Hourly | International operations |
| Insurance agencies | Brokerage commissions |
Source: 2025 Annual Report
2 Key Financial Observations
This summary is not a recommendation. It is a factual list of key financial metrics.
Performance — 2024-2025 (IFRS 17)
| Metric (NIS M) | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|
| Insurance-service revenue | 4,661 | 4,889 (+4.9%) |
| Underwriting profit | 290 | 363 (+25.5%) |
| Investment income | 1,078 | 1,649 (+53%) |
| Management fees Unit-Linked | 7 | 12.9 (+84%) |
Assets Under Management 2025
| Metric | Value |
|---|
| Unit-Linked investments | NIS 6,985M |
| Real estate | NIS 105M |
| Total AUM | NIS 7,090M |
| Investment income / Underwriting profit ratio | ×4.5 |
| Accounting standard | IFRS 17 (new) |
Missing data: multi-year comparison under IFRS 17 (missing — standard transition), Solvency Ratio, breakdown of international Hourly activity.
Core profit vs excess financial margin (NIS M)
Gross premiums by segment — H1 2026
Comprehensive income attributable — trend (NIS M)
Core profit by segment (NIS M)
Assets under management (NIS bn)
Contractual service margin, net (NIS M)%
3 Industry & Competitive Context
Insurance (general + life + health) + investment management. High concentration — 6-7 large players in Israel. Partial cyclicality — general insurance is cyclical (claims-driven), life insurance more stable. Investment income is dependent on capital markets.
| Competitor | Key Difference |
|---|
| Harel Insurance & Finance | Significantly larger, diversified |
| Migdal Insurance | Leader in life insurance and pensions |
| Clal Insurance | General + life + pension insurance |
| The Phoenix | Insurance + finance, direct competitor |
| Menora Mivtachim | Insurance + pensions |
4 Risk Factors
| Risk | Context |
|---|
| Capital-markets dependence | Investment income was NIS 1,649M in 2025 — a market decline would cause material damage |
| Transition to IFRS 17 | Reduced transparency for some time; difficult to compare with prior periods |
| Dependence on Ayalon | Most activity comes from Ayalon — execution risk at Ayalon |
| Competition from majors | Vishur/Ayalon are among the smaller players — pressure on market share |
| Regulation | The Capital Markets Authority can change capital requirements and price ceilings |
| Catastrophes / extreme events | Damage to underwriting profit in general insurance |
| Controlling-shareholder risk | Holding structure with dependence on owners' decisions |
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
Insurance-service revenue rose 4.9% in 2025. How much is organic growth (new contracts) versus indexation (premium increases tied to inflation)?
Profitability
Insurance-service profit jumped 25.5%. How much reflects improved underwriting quality versus the absence of catastrophic events?
Leverage
An insurance company with inherent net leverage (premiums versus future claims). What is the Solvency Ratio relative to the regulatory floor?
Competitive Position
Wishore ranks #6-7 by size. How stable is Ayalon’s position against the insurance majors?
Management Quality
The strategic acquisition of Ayalon in 2022 was a major decision. To what extent are synergies materialising?
Business Complexity / Risk
General + life + health insurance + investments + Hourly + agencies. How should an investor value the components?
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:
Capital markets remain positive, investment income grows to NIS 2B+, and underwriting margins improve above 5%. Under these conditions, comprehensive income continues to grow at a double-digit pace.
Base Scenario — if current trends continue:
Investment income stabilises at NIS 1.2-1.5B, underwriting grows 3-5% annually. Profit remains stable.
Adverse Scenario — if the following risks materialise:
A capital-markets decline pressures investment income (-30 to -50%), a significant insurance catastrophe, or tighter regulation. Profit erodes materially.
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
Wishore is not a conventional insurance company — it is a special case of a shell company that became the controlling shareholder of a traditional insurer. The model is unique because the controlling shareholder uses a holding structure to own Ayalon flexibly. The real question in analysing Wishore is not "is Ayalon profitable" (it is), but rather "how should one value a holding company whose entire activity is a single company acquired three years ago, with high sensitivity to capital markets?"
The critical variables are three. First, the split between underwriting and investment income. In 2025, underwriting profit was NIS 363M while investment income was NIS 1,649M — 4.5× greater on the investment side. This means the company is more sensitive to capital markets than to underwriting quality. Second, comparisons between IFRS 17 and legacy IFRS. The statements are not directly comparable, requiring caution in reading growth. Third, the Solvency Ratio. As an insurer, capital adequacy is the binding constraint. If it rises, there is room for dividends; if it declines, distributions are frozen.
Where the analysis may go wrong. First error — looking only at "comprehensive income" for 2025 without decomposing into underwriting/investments. Most of this year’s profit is the result of a positive market, not insurance execution. Second error — assuming 5% revenue growth is structural. Part of the growth is inflationary indexation that does not reflect genuine profitability. Third error — ignoring group-structure risk. If the controlling shareholder seeks to sell Ayalon or restructure, the value of WSHR will shift dramatically.
What distinguishes professional analysis of Wishore. Professional analysis addresses three things: (a) "normalised" net income — stripping out exceptional market returns; (b) the value of the controlling-shareholder management option — whether the company becomes a platform for further acquisitions; (c) how IFRS 17 will affect long-term transparency. 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 | weSure Global Tech — consolidated interim statements to 30 June 2026 and board report (signed 23/8/2026) | March 2026 | Official — TASE |
| 2 | Auditor review report — Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer, 23/8/2026 | March 2024 | Official — TASE |
| 3 | weSure Global Tech — investor presentation, August 2026; 2025 and 2023 annual reports | April 2026 | Official — Stock Exchange |
| 4 | Bizportal — market data, securities 1173228 and 209015, 25/8/2026 | Annual | Official |
Missing: multi-year comparison under IFRS 17 (missing — standard transition), Solvency Ratio, breakdown of international Hourly activity.
