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

First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. (FIBK) — this company's answers

NO on the Q4 2016 call 2017-01-27 B+
The model's full reasoning — Q4 2016 call → NO我们根据提供的电话会议记录，判断管理层是否描述了现有业务以低于当前市场条件的价格/利率/条款进行，并且这些条款即将重新定价，从而改善公司未来几个季度的经济状况，而无需赢得新客户或新需求。 在记录中，管理层讨论了贷款组合、净利息收入、费用等。关于利率敏感性，Marcy Mutch提到：“我们以保守的方式建模利率敏感性，任何潜在的联邦基金利率上调。我们建模0.67的beta，意味着我们将100个基点的上调中的67个基点返还给客户。因此，我们预计不会从联邦基金利率上调中获得显著收益。然而，如果这被证明过于保守，我们可能会看到一些上行空间。” 这暗示了如果利率上升，公司可能受益，但这是基于未来利率变化，而不是现有业务已经以低于当前市场的利率定价并即将重置。 关于贷款组合，Kevin Riley提到：“住宅房地产贷款下降了约2000万美元，因为我们让一些2013年之前入账的长期固定利率抵押贷款到期。正如我在过去两年所说，我们只保留期限较短的浮动利率抵押贷款。” 这表示他们正在让旧贷款到期，但并没有说这些旧贷款的利率低于当前市场，也没有说它们即将重新定价到更高水平。他们只是让它们到期，而不是重新定价。 关于存款，没有提到现有存款以低于市场利率定价并即将重置。 关于费用收入，没有提到现有合同或保单以低于市场条件定价并即将重置。 因此，管理层没有描述一个明确的现有业务以低于当前市场条件定价并即将重置的情况。他们提到利率敏感性，但那是基于未来利率变化，而不是现有业务已经锁定在低利率并即将重置。此外，他们提到贷款增长预期，但那是新业务。 因此，答案应为NO。

← Back to the full FIBK 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.