Question Bank › Repeat pull from proven relationships plus room

Repeat pull from proven relationships plus room left

Repeat pull from proven relationships plus room left: the installed base is expanding on its own initiative and is still

Calls Tested
499
Answered YES
37
Hit Rate
7.4%
rare by design

Independence Realty Trust, Inc. (IRT) — this company's answers

NO on the Q2 2018 call 2018-08-02 B
The model's full reasoning — Q2 2018 call → NOWe need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Company is REIT, value-add renovations in existing properties. Are existing customers/tenants "already served and proven itself with" taking more? The question asks about counterparties (tenants) expanding volume/scope etc. In REIT context, existing tenants renewing at higher rents? Or existing communities undergoing renovations and then rented at premiums. Management describes renovated units being leased faster, pre-leased backlog, rent premiums. But is this existing customers taking more? Actually tenants are new leases at renovated units, not necessarily existing customers expanding. The concept of "counterparties the company has ALREADY SERVED AND PROVEN ITSELF WITH" - could be properties/markets? They mention "we have shown our ability to identify communities with upside" through nine-property portfolio acquisition. But the question is about existing relationships (customers, accounts, partners) taking more. This is not a software company. The transcript: "In our first 500 units leased we have driven rents by 21%." That's renovation program, not existing tenants expanding. Also value-add initiatives are internal, not existing customers increasing orders. So likely NO. Need ensure no other aspect: capital recycling, acquisitions, existing markets. They are expanding in Columbus, Tampa via acquisitions, not existing relationships deepening. The "existing relationships" could be existing investors? No. Thus answer NO.

← Back to the full IRT 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 counterparties the company has ALREADY SERVED AND PROVEN ITSELF WITH — existing customers, accounts, partners, members, or programs — are CURRENTLY, ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE, TAKING OR COMMITTING TO MEANINGFULLY MORE from the company than they previously did (larger or earlier reorders, broader deployments, added sites, products, or scope, relationships stepped up to bigger phases), AND does management convey that these same relationships remain LIGHTLY PENETRATED — that what these counterparties have taken so far is still a small share of what they could take — so that the expansion now visible is early? Answer YES when both halves come through in management's own words as one coherent, present-tense story, in whatever form fits the business: (1) real expansion behavior already occurring in the recent period across more than an isolated account — driven by the counterparties' own choice after direct experience, not by price increases pushed onto unchanged volumes, and not merely contractual auto-renewal; and (2) management conveying, directly or plainly in substance, that substantial room remains inside these same relationships — more sites, volume, scope, or usage those counterparties could still take — with the fuller contribution ahead of the reported results. Answer NO if growth is attributed mainly to new-customer wins with nothing about existing relationships deepening. NO if the expansion is only hoped for, in pipeline, or projected. NO if the deepening rests on a single account or a one-time bulge management expects to fade. NO if management indicates the relationships are already substantially penetrated with little room left. NO if retention or loyalty language is generic with no observed expansion behavior described. NO if the pattern appears only in an analyst's question that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.

Companies that answered YES

TickerCompanyCallDateCall grade
PPC Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Q1 2024 2024-05-03 A
DUOT Duos Technologies Group, Inc. Q4 2023 2024-04-01 F
GIII G-III Apparel Group, Ltd. Q4 2024 2024-03-14 C
KOPN Kopin Corporation Q4 2023 2024-03-14 C+
DASH DoorDash, Inc. Q3 2023 2023-11-01 C+
SPT Sprout Social, Inc. Q2 2023 2023-08-04 B+
AFL Aflac Incorporated Q2 2023 2023-08-02 C+
CARS Cars.com Inc. Q1 2023 2023-05-06 B
CALX Calix, Inc. Q1 2023 2023-04-20 C+
TOST Toast, Inc. Q4 2022 2023-02-16 C+
ADPT Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation Q4 2022 2023-02-14 C+
PI Impinj, Inc. Q4 2022 2023-02-08 B+
DM Desktop Metal, Inc. Q2 2022 2022-08-08 F
FLYW Flywire Corporation Q1 2022 2022-05-14 B+
ZVIA Zevia PBC Q1 2022 2022-05-12 B
FARM Farmer Bros. Co. Q3 2022 2022-05-07 D
FAT FAT Brands Inc. Q4 2021 2022-03-21 F
SOPH SOPHiA GENETICS SA Q4 2021 2022-03-15 C
CYBR CyberArk Software Ltd. Q3 2021 2021-11-04 B+
ASAN Asana, Inc. Q2 2022 2021-09-01 B+
TENB Tenable Holdings, Inc. Q2 2021 2021-07-27 A
DGX Quest Diagnostics Incorporated Q2 2021 2021-07-22 B+
ADSK Autodesk, Inc. Q3 2019 2018-11-20 A
YUM Yum! Brands, Inc. Q2 2018 2018-08-02 C
ORAN Orange SA Q2 2018 2018-07-26 B
MKC McCormick & Company, Incorporated Q2 2018 2018-06-28 C+
CVS CVS Health Corporation Q1 2018 2018-05-02 B+
BCOV Brightcove Inc. Q1 2018 2018-04-26 B+
ILMN Illumina, Inc. Q1 2018 2018-04-24 A
ATI Allegheny Technologies Incorporated Q1 2018 2018-04-24 B
UPLD Upland Software, Inc. Q4 2017 2018-03-08 C+
HOLX Hologic, Inc. Q4 2017 2017-11-08 D
CCOI Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc. Q2 2017 2017-08-03 B
PTC PTC Inc. Q3 2017 2017-07-19 C+
WYY WidePoint Corporation Q3 2016 2016-11-09 D
GOGO Gogo Inc. Q1 2016 2016-05-06 C+
WK Workiva Inc. Q4 2015 2016-03-01 B

How the model reasoned

ZVIA · Q1 2022 → YESThe question is about whether management describes existing customers taking more from the company on their own initiative, and that these relationships are still lightly penetrated. YES Management describes existing customers (households and Club channel buyers) already taking meaningfully more through velocity (51% of growth), higher buy rates (+9%), and heavier consumption in the food channel, while conveying that these relationships remain lightly penetrated with substantial room ahead (new households, expanded flavors, broader deployments). This is 100% present-tense, driven by counterparties’ own choice after direct experience, not price hikes or auto-renewal, and the expansion is already occurring across multiple accounts rather than isolated or projected.
PI · Q4 2022 → YESThe question is about whether management describes existing customers expanding their business with the company, and that these relationships are still lightly penetrated. YES The transcript shows management describing existing customers expanding through program expansions, broader deployments, and continued system deployments that are already occurring and expected to drive large volumes in 2023 and beyond, while conveying that these relationships remain lightly penetrated with substantial room for further growth in scope, sites, and usage.
CVS · Q1 2018 → YESThe question is about whether management describes existing customers taking more from the company on their own initiative, and that these relationships are still lightly penetrated. YES The transcript shows management describing existing partnerships (Optum and Cigna clients) already taking more programs through an uptick in CVS Pharmacy and MinuteClinic offerings, driven by the companies' own adoption after experience, with continued opportunities for 2020 and beyond indicating substantial room remains in those relationships.

More from the question bank

Small company, disproportionate current winsThe bottleneck is inside and being paid awayTone of discovery: management sounds newly sExternal validators convergingProfit machinery upgraded while volume stillSelling something whose payoff to the buyer All 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.