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

Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. (AVAL) — this company's answers

NO on the Q4 2021 call 2022-03-17 C+
The model's full reasoning — Q4 2021 call → NO我们根据提供的财报电话会议记录，判断管理层是否描述了现有业务（存量业务）在旧条款下低于当前市场条件，并且这些业务即将按已确定的日程重新定价/续约，从而改善公司经济状况，而无需赢得新客户。 在记录中，管理层讨论了利率上升周期对净息差（NIM）的影响。具体来说，Diego Solano Saravia在回答关于贷款增长和定价的问题时提到：“我们正在看到中央银行非常快速地提高利率。在正常情况下，如果这是一个渐进的过程，利率缓慢上升，我们将有机会在资产和负债之间追赶，并在短期内获得净息差的收益。这就是我们期望在长期内看到的。也就是说，由于利率环境上升，我们的贷款利差将会扩大。然而，速度确实决定了短期内会发生什么，资产和负债之间的重新定价差异可能会在短期内带来一些压力。” 这描述了利率上升环境对净息差的潜在正面影响，但这是否属于“现有业务”的重新定价？管理层提到“资产和负债之间的重新定价差异”，这暗示了存量贷款和存款的重新定价。但关键在于，他们是否明确表示现有贷款组合的利率低于当前市场，并且这些贷款即将按已确定的日程重新定价？他们提到“由于利率环境上升，我们的贷款利差将会扩大”，但这是否是“已经嵌入在现有承诺中”的？他们还说“我们期望在长期内看到”，并且“速度确实决定了短期内会发生什么”，这表明他们预期净息差会改善，但改善的时间表并不明确，且可能受到短期压力的影响。 此外，在指导部分，他们给出了2022年净息差预期为4.3%-4.5%，而2021年为4.8%，这意味着他们预期净息差会下降，而不是上升。他们提到“我们期望利率上升周期可以为贷款净息差提供上行空间，但最初会有暂时的下行压力，因为加息速度很快，资产和负债的重新定价时间存在差异。”这实际上表明他们预期净息差在短期内会下降，长期可能改善，但并未明确描述现有业务以低于市场的利率被锁定，并即将按已确定的日程重置。 关于贷款组合，他们提到“我们期望贷款增长”，但这是新业务，不是现有业务的重定价。关于成本风险，他们提到“成本风险已恢复到疫情前水平”，但这是关于风险，不是定价。 因此，管理层并未明确描述现有业务（如贷款、合同）以低于当前市场的利率被锁定，并即将按已确定的日程重置。他们讨论的是利率上升对净息差的潜在影响，但并未强调现有业务与当前市场条件之间的差距是显著的，也没有描述一个明确的重新定价日程。相反，他们预期净息差在2022年下降，这表明他们并不认为现有业务会立即受益于利率上升。 因此，答案应为NO。

← Back to the full AVAL 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.