Question Bank › Relationships widening on the customers' initiat

Relationships widening on the customers' initiative, with the numbers still catching up

Calls Tested
449
Answered YES
5
Hit Rate
1.1%
rare by design

Western Midstream Partners, LP (WES) — this company's answers

NO on the Q3 2018 call 2018-10-31 D
The model's full reasoning — Q3 2018 call → NOWe need to determine if the transcript describes multiple existing relationships recently getting bigger, and that the reported results reflect only early part of these widenings, with most contribution still ahead. Let's analyze the transcript. The question asks about "SEVERAL of the company's EXISTING commercial relationships have RECENTLY GOTTEN BIGGER" - counterparties that had already been won, and they chose to take a wider/deeper commitment. And management conveys that reported results reflect only early part, with most still ahead. Look for evidence. The transcript discusses growth in Delaware Basin, DJ Basin, Marcellus. But is that about existing relationships getting bigger? The company is Western Gas Partners, a midstream company. They have customers (producers) that they gather/process. The growth in volumes could be due to existing customers increasing activity. But does management specifically say that existing relationships have recently gotten bigger? They mention "large customers' pro-activity in securing takeaway out of the basin." That might indicate existing customers are expanding. But is that a "wider or deeper commitment" from the counterparty? Possibly. However, the question specifically asks about "SEVERAL" existing relationships. The transcript mentions growth in Delaware, DJ, Marcellus. But does it attribute that to existing customers choosing to expand? Or is it just general volume growth? Also, the second part: "reported results reflect only early part of these widenings, with most contribution still ahead." Management does say that 2019 expects significant organic growth of at least 20%, and capital expenditures will decline. But is that specifically tied to existing relationships widening? They mention "the beginning of the second half ramp" and "expectation of approximately 1.2 times coverage for both the fourth quarter of 2018 and full year 2019." But that's about overall performance. Let's look for specific mentions of existing relationships getting bigger. The transcript mentions "our large customers' pro-activity in securing takeaway out of the basin." That could be existing customers.

← Back to the full WES analysis

Show the exact prompt the model was given
Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that SEVERAL of the company's EXISTING commercial relationships have RECENTLY GOTTEN BIGGER — counterparties the company had already won (customers, accounts, partners, distributors, members, or programs) that have, in the recent period, chosen to take a wider or deeper commitment than they had before — AND does management convey that the reported results reflect only the early part of these widenings, with most of their contribution still ahead? Answer YES when management's own words convey BOTH halves of this one phenomenon, in whatever form fits the business: (1) MULTIPLE EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS HAVE RECENTLY WIDENED, BY THE COUNTERPARTY'S OWN CHOICE. Management recounts that more than one already-established counterparty has stepped up its commitment in the recent period — in whatever form fits the industry, such as: existing customers adding locations, sites, users, lines, units, or departments; accounts that started with one product or use now taking additional ones; partners or distributors extending the relationship into new territories, categories, or scope; early deployments being broadened by the same counterparty; repeat orders arriving meaningfully larger than the initial ones; or relationships moving from an initial phase into a bigger committed phase. The widenings must be described as real and recent — decisions the counterparties actually made, with the resulting business signed, ordered, begun, or already flowing — not hoped for, in negotiation, or merely a pipeline. The pattern should span more than one relationship rather than a single large deal, and the growth should come from the counterparties choosing to take more, not merely from price increases pushed onto the same volumes. (2) THE NUMBERS ARE STILL CATCHING UP, AND MANAGEMENT SAYS SO. Management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that these widened commitments have contributed only partially to the results being reported — because the expansions began recently, are still ramping toward their intended level, or have most of their delivery, rollout, or volume scheduled ahead — so the just-reported numbers understate the level of business these relationships have already committed to. Management should treat this widening pattern as meaningful to where the company is heading, discussing it as part of the company's trajectory rather than as a passing detail. Answer NO if the growth discussed comes mainly from winning brand-new customers, new markets, or new logos rather than from existing relationships getting bigger. NO if only one relationship is described as widening, however large. NO if the widenings are only hoped for, proposed, in pilot with no commitment, or contingent on decisions not yet made. NO if the increase is chiefly price increases on unchanged volumes, ordinary reorders at the usual size, or routine fluctuations in order timing. NO if the widened business is already fully reflected in the reported results, with no meaningful contribution still ahead. NO if management attributes the step-ups mainly to a one-time event, catch-up, pull-forward, or temporary condition it expects to fade. NO if the pattern appears only in an analyst's question or model that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.

Companies that answered YES

TickerCompanyCallDateCall grade
DUOT Duos Technologies Group, Inc. Q4 2023 2024-04-01 F
ZVIA Zevia PBC Q1 2022 2022-05-12 B
ATI Allegheny Technologies Incorporated Q1 2018 2018-04-24 B
PTC PTC Inc. Q3 2017 2017-07-19 C+
GOGO Gogo Inc. Q1 2016 2016-05-06 C+

How the model reasoned

ATI · Q1 2018 → YESThe question is: Does management describe that SEVERAL of the company's EXISTING commercial relationships have RECENTLY GOTTEN BIGGER — counterparties the company had already won that have chosen to t...YES The transcript shows management describing multiple existing relationships (major engine OEM customers, Pratt & Whitney/UTC, Boeing, Airbus, and other aerospace/defense customers) that have recently widened commitments through production ramps, emergent demand above contractual share, and long-term agreements. It also conveys that these widenings are still ramping 2018 as an early phase of multi-year expansion, with most of the contribution ahead in 2019–2020.
GOGO · Q1 2016 → YESThe question is: Does management describe that SEVERAL of the company's EXISTING commercial relationships have RECENTLY GOTTEN BIGGER — counterparties the company had already won that have chosen to t...YES The transcript shows management describing multiple existing relationships that recently widened: Delta increased its commitment to more than 600 2Ku aircraft (bringing total awarded over 1,000), and Air Canada extended its relationship to the entire wide-body international fleet. These are presented as recent decisions by established counterparties.
ZVIA · Q1 2022 → YESThe question is: Does management describe that SEVERAL of the company's EXISTING commercial relationships have RECENTLY GOTTEN BIGGER — counterparties the company had already won that have chosen to t...

More from the question bank

Engine explained, runway namedDeliveries running ahead of the moneyInheritance being cashed inWhere the money wentRacing a clock somebody else setRepeat customers are now the ones asking forAll questions →
Not investment advice. Artul.ai publishes AI-generated earnings-call quality grades and expected-volatility estimates — never buy or sell recommendations. We tested over 1,600 predictive hypotheses against 165,000 transcripts; the honest result, including what failed, is documented in our methodology.