Stale terms, scheduled reset: the existing book is priced for a world that has moved on
The model's full reasoning — Q4 2022 call → NOWe need to determine if management describes that a meaningful portion of existing business is carried at prices below current market, and that this existing business is coming up for repricing on a schedule, so that economics improve without needing new customers. Look for statements about existing leases, renewals, or contracts that are below market and will roll off. For example, in the transcript, Ted Klinck mentions the acquisition of McKinney & Olive: "average rents estimated to be 35% below market." That is about an acquired property, not necessarily existing business of the company? Actually, it's about a property they acquired, so it's part of their existing book now. But the question is about the company's existing business being carried at prices below current market and coming up for repricing. The acquisition is new, but the property's leases are existing. However, the improvement would come from rolling rents up to market as leases expire. That is a repricing of existing leases. But is that a meaningful portion? They mention it as a unique opportunity. Also, they talk about their development pipeline and leasing, but that's new business. Look for other statements: They mention "we have grown normalized FFO per share each year for 12 consecutive years" but that's not about repricing. They talk about the Tivity move-out and backfill, but that's about a specific lease. They mention "our high-growth BBDs" and "strong leasing" but that's about new leasing. The key is whether they describe that their existing portfolio has leases below market and will roll to market. They do mention that for McKinney & Olive, but that's a specific acquisition. Also, they might have general statements about their portfolio being below market? Not really. They talk about "net effective rents for the year represent a record high" - that's about new leases. They talk about "we have been purposeful with our focus on strengthening cash flows" and selling assets that were capital inefficient, but that's not about repricing.
| Ticker | Company | Call | Date | Call 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+ |
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.