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 Aeroportuario del Centro Norte, S.A.B. de C.V. (OMAB) — this company's answers

NO on the Q2 2017 call 2017-07-24 D
The model's full reasoning — Q2 2017 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、费率或条款进行，而这些条款现在明显低于当前市场条件下相同业务所能获得的价格，并且这些现有业务即将按照管理层已经可以看到的时间表进行重新定价、续约或重置，从而公司的经济状况将在未来几个季度随着旧条款的到期而改善，而无需赢得新客户或新需求。 在记录中，管理层讨论了航空收入增长，提到“specific tariff adjustments”和“increase in specific tariffs”以接近最高费率。他们提到“we will have to increase tariffs this year, again, of course, assuming now we have – we're entitled to increase tariffs twice a year, every six months.” 这表明他们有权每六个月调整一次费率，并且他们计划这样做以达到预期的合规水平。这似乎是对现有费率结构的调整，而不是针对新业务。然而，他们提到“the expectation is to be growing, as expected, and we should be growing more on the – on upper passenger level, and of course, on meeting the inflation and the expectations on the FX, the passenger traffic and the increase in tariffs earnings to get to the 95%, 96% expectation.” 这暗示他们正在提高现有费率以接近最高允许水平，这可以被视为现有业务的重定价。 但问题在于，这种费率调整是否属于“明显低于当前市场条件”的旧条款？管理层提到他们正在提高费率以接近最高费率，这表明他们过去收取的费率低于最高允许水平，现在正在提高。这可以被视为现有业务的重定价，且时间表是已知的（每六个月一次）。然而，他们并没有明确说当前费率低于市场条件，而是说他们正在提高以接近最高允许水平。此外，他们提到“aeronautical revenues per passenger rose 4%”和“specific rate adjustments”，这似乎是对现有费率的调整。 另一方面，关于商业收入，他们提到“commercial revenues only grew 2%”，并解释广告收入下降，但其他领域增长。他们没有提到现有合同即将到期并以更高价格续约。他们提到“we are optimizing the commercial agreements with tenants”，但并没有说现有合同低于市场价。 关于多元化收入，他们提到酒店和货运增长，但没有提到现有合同重定价。 总体而言，管理层描述的是他们正在提高航空费率以接近最高允许水平，这可以被视为现有业务的重定价，且时间表是已知的（每六个月一次）。然而，他们并没有明确说当前费率低于市场条件，而是说他们正在提高以接近最高允许水平。此外，他们提到“the expectation is to be growing, as expected”，这似乎是对未来增长的预期，而不是对现有业务重定价的明确描述。 问题要求回答YES的条件是：管理层明确描述现有业务以低于当前市场的价格进行，并且重置时间表已知。这里，管理层提到他们有权每六个月调整费率，并且他们计划这样做，这暗示现有费率低于最高允许水平，但并没有说低于市场条件。市场条件可能指的是竞争性市场，而最高允许费率是监管上限。他们正在提高费率以接近上限，这可以被视为现有业务的重定价，但并没有明确说当前费率低于市场条件。 此外，他们提到“aeronautical revenues per passenger rose 4%”和“specific rate adjustments”，这似乎是对现有费率的调整。但问题要求的是“meaningful portion of existing business”以低于当前市场的价格进行，并且重置时间表已知。这里，他们提到“we will have to increase tariffs this year, again”，这表明他们计划提高费率，但并没有说这是否是低于市场条件的。 在回答中，管理层没有明确说现有合同或费率低于市场条件，而是说他们正在提高以接近最高允许水平。这更像是监管调整，而不是市场重定价。此外，他们提到“the expectation is to be growing”，这似乎是对未来的预期，而不是对现有业务重定价的描述。 因此，我认为答案应该是NO，因为管理层没有明确描述现有业务以低于当前市场的价格进行，而是说他们正在提高费率以接近最高允许水平，这更像是监管调整，而不是市场重定价。此外，他们也没有描述重置时间表，只是说他们有权每六个月调整一次。 所以，回答NO。

← Back to the full OMAB 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.