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

The Williams Companies, Inc. (WMB) — this company's answers

NO on the Q3 2021 call 2021-11-02 B
The model's full reasoning — Q3 2021 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，从而公司经济状况将在未来几个季度随着旧条款的到期而改善，无需赢得新客户或新需求。 在记录中，管理层提到了几个相关点： - 在西部业务中，他们提到“我们降低了Haynesville的采集费率，以换取Chesapeake的未开发上游面积”，这导致采集收入下降，但被Barnett和[Indiscernible]的费率上涨所抵消，这些费率上涨是因为合同允许他们在价格较高时参与上行。 - 他们还提到“去年，我们的合作伙伴Overland Pass Pipeline支付我们 deficiency fee 以允许他们从OPPL撤出产量。这些 deficiency fee 今年不存在，但这些费用的资产被先前采集量的费用所抵消。” - 在讨论西部业务时，他们提到“整体采集量上升1%，Haynesville和Piceance的产量增加，但Wamsutter和Barnett的产量下降。” - 在讨论成本时，他们提到“我们的运营费用上升了7300万美元，其中1200万美元来自Sequent，5100万美元来自E&P，其余与奖金费用有关。”他们澄清说，除去这些，费用实际上在下降。 关于重新定价或重置，管理层没有明确描述现有合同或费率将在未来几个季度重置到当前市场水平。他们提到了费率上涨，但那是由于合同中的价格参与条款，而不是因为旧条款到期。他们也没有描述一个时间表，说明现有业务将在未来几个季度以更高价格重新定价。 在讨论资本配置时，他们提到了现代化项目，但那是新投资，不是现有业务的重新定价。 在讨论Sequent时，他们提到“Sequent传统上在冬季的前几个季度赚取大部分利润，因此本季度没有实现利润。Sequent有大量运输能力通过基差互换对冲，以及存储库存通过NYMEX头寸对冲，这导致了本季度这些对冲的2.77亿美元未实现按市值计价亏损，因为价格上涨和基差扩大。这意味着我们的存储和运输头寸的内在价值也大幅上升。同样，你将在2022年上半年看到这些价值的很大一部分实现。”这暗示了现有对冲头寸将在未来重置，但这是关于对冲的，而不是关于现有合同或费率的重新定价。而且，这更像是市场条件变化带来的收益，而不是旧条款重置到当前水平。 管理层没有明确说现有业务以低于当前市场的价格进行，并且即将重置。他们提到了费率上涨，但那是由于合同中的价格参与条款，而不是因为旧条款到期。他们也没有描述一个时间表，说明现有业务将在未来几个季度以更高价格重新定价。 因此，答案应为NO。

← Back to the full WMB 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.