Question Bank › Stale terms, scheduled reset

Stale terms, scheduled reset

Stale terms, scheduled reset: the existing book is priced for a world that has moved on

Calls Tested
1,435
Answered YES
10
Hit Rate
0.7%
rare by design

Associated Banc-Corp (ASB) — this company's answers

NO on the Q1 2024 call 2024-04-25 A
The model's full reasoning — Q1 2024 call → NO我们根据提供的财报电话会议记录来判断。管理层是否描述了现有业务（存量业务）以过去设定的、低于当前市场条件的价格/利率/条款进行，并且这些业务即将按已知时间表重新定价，从而改善公司经济状况，而无需赢得新客户或新需求。 在记录中，Andy Harmening提到：“we continue to see asset yields inch higher through the back half of 2023, and that trend has continued into Q1 of this year as a sizable portion of our loan book has repriced and remixed over time.” 这表明贷款组合中相当大一部分已经重新定价，并且这种趋势持续。Derek Meyer也提到：“a sizable portion of our loan book has repriced and remixed over time.” 这暗示现有贷款正在按过去设定的利率重新定价到当前更高的利率。此外，他们提到证券组合的收益率上升，以及存款成本压力缓解。但关键点是：他们是否明确表示现有业务（如贷款、证券）的重新定价是已确定的、按时间表进行的，并且这种重新定价带来的改善是显著的？ 他们提到“we continue to expect net interest income growth of between 2% to 4% in 2024”，这依赖于资产收益率上升和存款成本稳定。但具体到现有业务重新定价，他们提到“a sizable portion of our loan book has repriced”，这确实表明现有贷款正在按过去设定的利率到期并重新定价到当前更高的利率。然而，他们是否明确说这些重新定价是“below current market”并且“coming up for repricing on a schedule”？他们提到“as a sizable portion of our loan book has repriced and remixed over time”，这暗示了重新定价已经发生，但并未明确说这些旧利率低于当前市场，且重新定价是已确定的。此外，他们提到“we expect NIM to widen by the end of the year”，但这是基于预测，而非已确定的重新定价。 更关键的是，他们是否描述了“existing book”的重新定价是“already embedded in commitments”并且“on a timeline management can describe”？他们提到“we continue to see asset yields inch higher”和“a sizable portion of our loan book has repriced”，但并未具体说明这些重新定价的规模或时间表。他们也没有明确说这些旧利率低于当前市场条件，只是说收益率在上升。此外，他们提到“deposit cost pressures have not yet fully subsided”，但这是关于存款成本，而非资产重新定价。 在回答中，他们提到“we continue to expect total loan growth of between 4% and 6%”，这依赖于新业务，而非现有业务重新定价。他们提到“we are generating assets at a little bit higher yield”，但这是新贷款，而非现有贷款。 因此，管理层并未明确描述现有业务（如贷款、证券）以低于当前市场的利率进行，并且这些业务即将按已确定的时间表重新定价，从而改善经济状况。他们只是提到资产收益率在上升，但并未明确说这是现有业务重新定价的结果，且未描述时间表。此外，他们提到“we expect NIM to widen by the end of the year”，但这是预测，而非已确定的重新定价。 因此，答案应为NO。

← Back to the full ASB 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 a MEANINGFUL PORTION OF THE COMPANY'S EXISTING BUSINESS is still being carried at prices, rates, or terms set in the past that are now clearly BELOW what the same business would command under current market conditions — AND that this existing business is coming up for repricing, renewal, or reset on a schedule management can already see, so that the company's economics are positioned to improve as those older terms roll off over the coming quarters, WITHOUT needing to win new customers or new demand to get there? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent situation: the company's existing book — its current leases, contracts, charters, policies, agreements, hedges, rate structures, or customer arrangements — was struck under past conditions at levels below what the identical business commands today, and management describes the calendar on which that book resets toward current terms as already determined and largely ahead. This may take whatever form fits the industry: expiring leases or renewing contracts priced below current market, hedges or fixed-price agreements rolling off into a higher-price environment, charters or policies coming up for reset, grandfathered or legacy pricing being reset toward current levels, secured rate or tariff changes only now earning into the book, or escalators and resets built into existing agreements — and management treats the gap between the old terms and current terms as significant to the company's coming results. What matters is that the improvement is already embedded in commitments the company already holds, on a timeline management can describe, rather than depending on anything new being won. Answer NO if the better pricing described applies only to NEW business, new customers, or future sales rather than to the company's existing book as it resets; NO if the repricing described is the ordinary, perpetual background rhythm of the industry with no sense that today's gap between old terms and current terms is unusually wide or meaningful; NO if better terms are only being sought, planned, targeted, or hoped for rather than already secured on a schedule; NO if the pricing discussion is chiefly about passing through the company's own cost increases; NO if the expected improvement depends mainly on market prices, demand, or conditions that have not yet arrived rather than on terms already set to reset; and NO if the idea 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
SNV Synovus Financial Corp. Q1 2024 2024-04-18 B
FISI Financial Institutions, Inc. Q4 2023 2024-01-26 B
UMBF UMB Financial Corporation Q3 2022 2022-10-26 C+
CRK Comstock Resources, Inc. Q2 2022 2022-08-02 B+
ADSK Autodesk, Inc. Q3 2019 2018-11-20 A
T AT&T Inc. Q3 2018 2018-10-24 C+
DBX Dropbox, Inc. Q2 2018 2018-08-09 B
ESS Essex Property Trust, Inc. Q2 2018 2018-08-03 B+
PTC PTC Inc. Q3 2017 2017-07-19 C+
BDN Brandywine Realty Trust Q1 2017 2017-04-21 C+

How the model reasoned

FISI · Q4 2023 → YESThe question is about whether management describes a meaningful portion of the existing business being carried at below-current-market terms, and that it's coming up for repricing on a visible schedul...YES The transcript shows management describing exactly this situation for the company's existing loan and securities portfolios (yields rolling off) and for a meaningful portion of its deposit book (the money-market campaign with 12-month guarantees that reset in July 2024). Jack Plants explicitly ties the expected margin expansion to these scheduled repric ings and redeployments of existing cash flows, stating that the improvement is already embedded in the company's current commitments and does not require new customers or demand. This matches the criteria for a "meaningful portion" of the existing business coming up for repricing on a visible schedule. The answer is therefore YES.
PTC · Q3 2017 → YESThe question is about whether management describes a meaningful portion of the existing business being carried at below-current-market prices/terms that are coming up for repricing on a visible schedu...YES Management describes a meaningful portion of the existing business (large enterprise customers on volume purchase agreements / perpetual licenses with discounted maintenance) being carried at below-current off-the-shelf rates. These older terms are expiring on a visible schedule (many in Q4 2017), creating a compelling event where customers must either convert 50%+ ACV uplift to subscription or renew maintenance at 25% higher rates. This repricing is already embedded in the existing book and will improve economics without new customers or demand, as confirmed by the large pipeline of such opportunities and the fact that most large deals are already moving to subscription.
UMBF · Q3 2022 → YESThe question is about whether management describes a meaningful portion of the existing business being carried at below-current-market terms that will reprice/reset on a known schedule, improving econ...YES The transcript shows management describing a meaningful portion of the existing loan book carried at past terms that are now below current market levels, with repricing already scheduled: 61% of loans (~$12.1 billion) are variable-rate, 60% repricing in the next quarter and 71% within 12 months, tied to short-end indices. Loan yields rose 74 bp quarter-over-quarter to 4.46% (cycle-to-date beta 37%), and the securities portfolio is rolling off at ~1.83% yield while cash flows fund higher-yielding loans.

More from the question bank

Center of attention has moved to the newest Management is playing referee between competSelling into a customer's own emergencyDemand off the charts · scarcity_amplificatiAnalysts still asking about the old story whOutgrowing the shellAll 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.