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

Crown Holdings, Inc. (CCK) — this company's answers

NO on the Q1 2022 call 2022-04-26 C+
The model's full reasoning — Q1 2022 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中相当大的一部分仍以过去设定的价格/条款执行，而这些条款现在明显低于当前市场水平，并且这些业务即将按已知时间表重新定价/续约，从而在不依赖新客户或新需求的情况下改善公司经济状况。 在记录中，管理层多次提到合同、定价和通胀转嫁。例如： - 在北美，管理层提到“contractual recovery of inflation commenced on April 1st in North America”（北美合同通胀回收于4月1日开始）。 - 在欧洲，管理层提到“we do expect significant earnings headwinds in this segment during the second quarter and for the balance of the year”（我们确实预计该部门在第二季度和今年剩余时间将面临重大盈利逆风），但未明确说明现有合同重置。 - 在Transit包装业务中，管理层提到“Appropriate pricing actions have been taken, and we expect second-quarter income in the segment will reflect that”（已采取适当的定价行动，我们预计该部门第二季度收入将反映这一点）。 - 在北美食品罐业务中，管理层提到“pricing actions were taken to recover 2020 inflationary cost items”（已采取定价行动以回收2020年通胀成本项目）。 然而，关键问题是：管理层是否明确描述了现有业务（即现有合同、客户安排）以低于当前市场的价格执行，并且这些合同即将按已知时间表重置，从而带来改善？管理层提到“contractual recovery of inflation commenced on April 1st”表明现有合同中有通胀转嫁条款，但这是否意味着现有合同价格低于当前市场？管理层没有明确说现有合同价格低于市场，而是说通胀回收开始。此外，管理层提到“we are steadfast in our determination to be fairly compensated for the goods and services that we provide”（我们坚定地决心为提供的商品和服务获得公平补偿），但这是关于未来定价的意图，而非现有合同重置。 在回答中，管理层提到“we do expect significant earnings headwinds in this segment during the second quarter and for the balance of the year”表明欧洲业务面临成本压力，但未提及现有合同重置带来的收益改善。相反，他们提到“we get about a third of it next year and we get the balance of it in '24”（我们明年获得约三分之一，2024年获得剩余部分），这似乎是指恢复利润率，但未明确说明是现有合同重置。 此外，管理层提到“we are sold out”和“demand for beverage cans remaining in excess of our ability to supply”，这表明需求强劲，但未提及现有合同价格低于市场。 总体而言，管理层没有明确描述现有业务以低于当前市场的价格执行，并且这些业务即将按已知时间表重置。他们更多谈论的是成本转嫁和定价行动，但未明确说明现有合同重置带来的收益改善。因此，答案应为NO。 根据指令，如果定价讨论主要是关于转嫁公司自身成本增加，则答案为NO。这里管理层确实在讨论转嫁成本（如通胀、能源、原材料），而不是现有合同重置到更高市场水平。因此，答案为NO。

← Back to the full CCK 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.