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

Johnson Controls International plc (JCI) — this company's answers

NO on the Q2 2022 call 2022-05-04 C
The model's full reasoning — Q2 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公司现有业务中相当大的一部分仍以过去设定的价格/费率/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可预见的日程重新定价/续约/重置，从而在未来几个季度改善公司经济状况，无需赢得新客户或新需求。 在记录中，管理层多次提到定价和积压订单。例如，George Oliver提到“我们一直在将高得多的预期通胀纳入积压订单”，并且“随着我们进入下半年，这些订单的转化率会更高”。Olivier Leonetti提到“我们以今天的价格定价，预期通胀，我们今天定价为高个位数”，并且“我们相信我们将拥有非常健康的收入基础，基于我们现在预订的订单”。这些讨论主要涉及新订单的定价，而不是现有积压订单的重新定价。然而，积压订单本身是已签订但尚未执行的合同，其价格是在过去设定的。管理层提到“积压订单的利润率上升了80个基点”，并且“随着这些积压订单在今年晚些时候和2023年转化，我们预计利润率趋势会改善”。这暗示了现有积压订单的定价高于过去，但这是否意味着现有业务正在以低于当前市场的价格执行？实际上，积压订单是已锁定的合同，其价格是在签订时确定的。如果当前市场价格上涨，那么这些积压订单的价格可能低于当前市场，但管理层并未明确说现有积压订单的价格低于当前市场，而是说新订单的定价更高。此外，管理层提到“价格实现继续加速，贡献了近6个百分点的有机增长”，这主要是在短期产品业务中。对于长期业务，他们提到“价格/成本略微为负”，但并未明确说现有合同即将重新定价。 关键点：管理层是否描述了现有业务（如服务合同、维护协议等）即将以更高价格续约？在记录中，他们提到“服务订单增长10%”，但未具体说明续约定价。他们提到“我们的服务增长飞轮”和“提高每位客户的收入”，但这是通过附加服务实现的，而非重新定价现有合同。此外，他们提到“我们正在将高得多的预期通胀纳入积压订单”，这指的是新订单，而非现有订单的重新定价。 因此，管理层并未明确描述现有业务（如已签订的服务合同）即将以当前市场水平重新定价，而是强调新订单的定价更高。他们提到积压订单的利润率上升，但这是指新签订的积压订单，而非现有积压订单的重新定价。此外，他们提到“随着积压订单转化，利润率将恢复”，但这是指积压订单的转化，而非重新定价。 因此，答案应为NO，因为管理层并未描述现有业务（如现有合同）即将以当前市场水平重新定价，而是主要讨论新订单的定价和积压订单的转化。

← Back to the full JCI 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.