JANUARY 16, 2014

FEATURE ARTICLES
California’s Proposed Budget Would Boost School and Community College Districts’ Liquidity
Governor Jerry Brown is seeking to erase $6.2 billion in deferred state aid and add $4.8 billion in new funding, a credit positive for the districts.

RATING CHANGE HIGHLIGHTS
2 New York City Transition Finance Authority Rated Aa1; Outlook Stable
The Aa1 rating for $1 billion of New York City Transitional Finance Authority bonds reflect its high debt service coverage provided by New York City personal income tax and sales tax revenues.

8

Nassau County Sewage Plant Damaged by Sandy to Benefit from FEMA Aid
FEMA will provide the Nassau County, NY sewer plant over $730 million to repair damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. Without the aid, Nassau would have needed to increase their debt by 27% to pay for the repairs.

4

Scott & White Healthcare (TX) Upgraded to Aa3; Outlook Negative
The action, affecting $1.5 billion in debt, reflects the benefits of the merger with Baylor Health Care System.

8

St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center (NY) Downgraded to Ba2; Outlook Negative 5
The downgrade on $143 million in debt reflects increased liquidity risks related to the terms of new bank debt and the hospital’s lower cash position.

8

A State Court Ratifies Measures That Will Lower Cranston, RI’s Pension Expenses
The measures freeze the pension Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA), and caps it at 3%. The measure will lower the city’s annual pension expenses by an estimated $6 million, or 3% of its General Fund.

Yeshiva University (NY) Downgraded to B1 from Baa2; On Review for Downgrade
The downgrade affects $315 million in debt, and is based on the university's extremely narrow liquidity.

8

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS
Academic Medical Center Hospitals Maintain Stronger Credit Characteristics Than Other Not-for-Profit Hospitals
Academic medical center hospitals typically have stronger credit profiles than community and other teaching hospitals, but they are not immune to the credit risks facing the healthcare industry.

7

Fairfax County’s (VA) Outlook Revised to Negative; Aaa GO Rating Affirmed
The negative outlook reflects declines in the county's available reserves to levels that are below-average when compared to Aaa-rated peers.

8

Privatized Student Housing Expected to Weather Enrollment Declines
Privatized student housing project financings are expected to perform well despite declining enrollment in the higher education sector.

7 Access our moodys.com public finance landing page at moodys.com/U.S.PublicFinance

MOODYS.COM

Eric Harper Analyst +1.415.274.1753 eric.harper@moodys.com

California’s Proposed Budget Would Boost School and Community College Districts’ Liquidity
Last Thursday, California (A1 stable) Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed 2014-15 state budget, which includes the elimination of a $6.2 billion backlog of deferred state aid payments and adds $4.8 billion in new funding for school and community college districts. The budget plan is credit positive for the districts because it materially improves their liquidity, makes them less reliant on short-term borrowing and bolsters cash reserves. The state delayed an increasingly larger amount of aid payments to districts during and after the recession. Under the 2013-14 state budget, only about half of the outstanding $6.2 billion in “deferrals” (delayed payments of state funding to districts) were to be paid in fiscal 2014-15, with the remaining $2.9 billion in fiscal 2015-16. The new proposal eliminates all outstanding deferrals in July 2014 without creating any future ones. The 2014-15 proposed budget would also increase new funding by 8% to $4.8 billion for school and community college districts. Districts that are heavily reliant on state aid, generally those with lower wealth and property tax values, were most affected by the deferrals and would benefit the most from the governor’s proposal. The largest affected districts include Los Angeles Unified School District (Aa2 stable), Long Beach Unified School District (Aa2) and Fresno Unified School District (Aa3 negative). Other districts with larger portions of their general funding coming from property taxes will receive little or no benefit from the early deferral payments. The governor’s plan to eliminate all aid deferrals will strengthen districts’ liquidity compared with our earlier expectations and could be the beginning of several years of on-time payments. Furthermore, we expect school and community college districts to be significantly less dependent on short-term borrowing and have healthier cash reserves. The state government deferred state aid payments during the recession to avoid permanent cuts to school and community college districts. As the state would pay off prior-year deferrals, it created new ones and began developing a large backlog of payments. At the height of deferrals in fiscal 2011-12, the state owed districts $10.2 billion, 22% of annual state aid. To make up for delayed state aid, school and community college districts increasingly relied on borrowing in the short-term market via tax and revenue anticipation notes (TRANs) for cash flow needs (see exhibit). Districts issued nearly 330 TRANs in fiscal 2011-12, versus about 90 in 2007-08 – a more than 250% increase. Districts with a heavy reliance on state aid for annual funding experienced significant liquidity challenges and were the most reliant on TRANs.

2

MOODY’S WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION

JANUARY 16, 2014

California State Aid Deferrals and School and Community College District Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes Issuance
Number of TRAN issues - left axis 350 300 250 200 $6 150 100 50 0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 $4 $2 $0 State Aid Deferrals - right axis $12 $10 $8

Source: California Legislative Analyst’s Office, California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, Moody’s Investors Service

3

MOODY’S WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION

JANUARY 16, 2014

$ Billions

Robert Weber Assistant Vice President - Analyst +1.212.553.7280 robert.weber@moodys.com

Nassau County Sewage Plant Damaged by Sandy to Benefit From FEMA Aid
On Saturday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had approved at least $730 million to repair and rebuild a Nassau County, NY (A2 stable) sewage treatment plant damaged by Superstorm Sandy. The announcement is credit positive for Nassau County because the subsidy reduces the need for a debt issuance that would have increased the financially constrained county’s outstanding debt by 27%. The Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant serves approximately 550,000 residents, or 41% of the county’s population, and treats 58 million gallons of sewage daily. Superstorm Sandy destroyed the facility’s electrical grid and shut down the plant for two days. The county estimates that necessary repairs and upgrades for the facility will cost approximately $850 million. The county had planned to finance these capital investments through a combination of state loans and long-term financing. Until now, however, the federal government had not committed to a specific share of the construction costs. FEMA’s $730 million commitment is the agency’s largest award to date for Sandy-related repairs to any local government but New York City. Over the past decade, Nassau County has relied heavily on both short- and long-term borrowing to fund its operations. The county has taken measures to reduce expenditures under the oversight of the Nassau County Interim Finance Authority (NIFA, sales tax rated Aa1 stable), a state-appointed control board, and has had some success in reducing headcount. However, the county has limited ability to reduce its annual debt service, which remains highest in the state. The county’s debt currently totals $3.1 billion, an elevated 1.5% of real estate market value, and includes bonds issued by NIFA that are secured by the county’s sales tax revenues. Debt service is a high 13.5% of expenditures (see exhibit), and the additional debt for the sewage plant would have put additional strain on the county’s finances. Nassau County’s Debt Burden Is Significantly Higher than Its Peers
General Obligation Rating Net Direct Debt Burden as a Percent of Market Value Debt Service as a Percent of Expenditures

Nassau Rockland Orange Westchester Suffolk Putnam

A2 Baa3 Aaa Aa1 A2 Aa2

1.5% 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5%

13.5% 8.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8%

Source: Nassau County, New York, 2012 audited financial statements

The announcement is also positive for other local governments affected by Superstorm Sandy, particularly Long Beach, NY (Baa3 stable). The city was one of the most affected communities in New York, and is currently working with county officials on a plan to turn its badly damaged treatment plant into a pumping station to transfer sewage to Bay Park. As part of that effort, the city is seeking federal funding; Nassau County’s approval may indicate FEMA’s willingness to fund these projects.

4

MOODY’S WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION

JANUARY 16, 2014

Vito Galluccio Analyst +1. 212.553-2738 vito.galluccio@moodys.com

A State Court Ratifies Measures That Will Lower Cranston, RI’s Pension Expenses
On January 9, Cranston, RI (A2 negative) Mayor Allan Fung announced a Rhode Island Superior Court ruling allowing the city to limit cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to every other year for its police and fire pension plan. The decision also allows caps on COLAs of 3% in those alternating years. The ruling ratifies a settlement between the city and its police and fire plan retirees and employees. It is credit positive for Cranston because it reduces the city’s pension liabilities, lowers the annual required contribution (ARC) to its pension plans and forces the city to fully fund its ARC in future years. The city estimates that the settlement will reduce the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) of its police and fire plan by 10% relative to 2011, lowering the UAAL to an estimated $261 million in 2014. The adjustment will strengthen the city’s weakest-funded pension plan, which reported a very low 20% funded ratio in fiscal 2013. The settlement will also reduce the plan’s ARC by $6 million, nearly 3% of the General Fund budget (see exhibit). Reforms will Reduce Cranston’s Pension ARC (Annual Required Contribution) in 2014
ARC 30 25 20 ARC without reform

$ Millions

15 10 5 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: City of Cranston Audited Financial Statements

Further, under the judge’s ruling, Cranston will fund 100% of its reduced ARC for the plan in fiscal 2014. The city will then fund between 98% and 99.5% annually from fiscal 2015-2018 and 100% thereafter through 2042. In the previous six years, the city has paid between 81% and 96% of its ARC on the police and fire plan. The ruling approves a settlement between Cranston and the police and fire retiree associations reached following a lawsuit brought by the retirees. The retirees sought to block the city’s initial restrictions on pension benefits. Per the settlement, over the next ten years COLAs for union members hired before July 1995 can only be increased every second year by a maximum rate of 3%, retroactive July 1, 2013. After the tenth year the COLA will increase by 1.5% annually for two years, and beyond that by 3% annually. The settlement still needs to be approved by the city council, and we expect they will approve it at the January 27 council meeting because the council and the mayor have advocated measures to reduce pension expenditures. Seventy-six retirees have opted out of the Cranston settlement and retain their option to pursue litigation against the city. While the city will save on the settlement, it does not apply to all other city employees, including those in the police and fire departments hired after 1995. These city employees are either in a state pension system or a defined contribution plan.

5

MOODY’S WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION

JANUARY 16, 2014

In freezing and capping pension COLAs, Cranston joins other Rhode Island cities grappling with large unfunded pension liabilities, including the capital city of Providence (Baa1 stable). In Rhode Island, unions are challenging statewide pension reform enacted in 2011 that suspended COLAs. The matter is in mediation, overseen by the same judge who approved the Cranston settlement. The settlement will help sustain Cranston’s finances, which has been challenged by growing pension costs and deficits in its school fund. The city transferred revenues from the general fund to the school fund in 2008 and 2009 to keep the school fund solvent. The general fund has maintained reserves above 10% of revenues since 2007. The school have since repaid the majority of funds borrowed from the general fund by utilizing surpluses in 2012 and 2013. For more information on Moody’s insights on employee pensions and the related credit impact on companies, governments, and other entities across the globe please visit Moody’s on Pensions at www.moodys.com/pensions.

6

MOODY’S WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION

JANUARY 16, 2014

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS
Academic Medical Center Hospitals Maintain Stronger Credit Characteristics Than Other Not-for-Profit Hospitals Academic medical center (AMC) hospitals typically have stronger credit profiles than community and other teaching hospitals. Their tripartite missions of clinical, research and teaching activity as well as their strategic partnerships with top research universities provide AMC hospitals with distinct credit strengths that differentiate them from other not-for-profit (NFP) hospitals. Further, AMC hospitals that are owned by universities often receive tangible and intangible benefits from their parent universities. Despite these strengths, AMC hospitals are not immune to the credit risks facing the healthcare industry and some of their financial metrics are weaker than those of the entire NFP hospital sector. Privatized Student Housing Expected to Weather Enrollment Declines Privatized student housing project financings are expected to perform well despite declining enrollment in the higher education sector. The solid financial performance and market position of these not-for-profit, public-private partnerships will help them navigate a more challenged environment.

7

MOODY’S WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION

JANUARY 16, 2014

RATING CHANGE HIGHLIGHTS
New York City Transitional Finance Authority Rated Aa1; Outlook Stable Jan. 13 – We assigned an Aa1 rating to $1 billion of New York City Transitional Finance Authority (TFA) subordinate future tax secured bonds. The bonds will be used to help finance the City of New York's (Aa2 stable) capital plan and to refund certain outstanding future tax secured bonds. The ratings reflect the high debt service coverage provided by the pledge of New York City personal income tax and sales tax revenues, a strong legal structure that insulates TFA from potential city fiscal stress. The outlook is stable. Baylor Health Care System’s (TX) Aa3 Affirmed and Scott & White Healthcare (TX) Upgraded to Aa3; Outlook Remains Negative Jan. 16 – We affirmed the Aa3 rating assigned to Baylor Health Care System's (TX) $786 million of outstanding bonds issued through the Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corporation. We also upgraded the long-term unenhanced bond ratings assigned to Scott & White Healthcare's $750 million of debt. In October, Baylor Health Care System and Scott & White Healthcare combined to form a new organization called Baylor Scott & White Health (BSW). As of January 1, 2014, Baylor and Scott & White are in process of establishing a new single Master Trust Indenture (MTI) that combines the two previously separate obligated groups. As such, previous debt issued by Baylor and Scott & White will be secured with the security interest provided under the new MTI. The rating outlook remains negative and reflects financial challenges by Scott & White that dilute the financial strength of the Baylor system at the outset of the combination. St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center (NY) Downgraded to Ba2; Outlook Negative Jan. 15 – We downgraded St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center's (NY) rating to Ba2 from Ba1 due to increased liquidity risks related to the terms of new bank debt and a lower cash position, and higher absolute debt. The action, which affects $143 million in debt, reflects a sizable and unexpected increase in debt, heightened liquidity risks related to the on-demand repayment terms of a bank line, and a weaker cash position following a decline in 2013, as well as an expected further decline in 2014, leaving the hospital little cushion to withstand liquidity stress. The negative outlook reflects risks related to a major information systems installation, including higher-than-expected costs and a slowdown in collections, and refinancing risk related to securing long-term financing at manageable terms and rate to replace the bank line. Yeshiva University (NY) Downgraded to B1 from Baa2; Review for Downgrade Jan. 9 – We downgraded Yeshiva University's rating to B1 from Baa2, and kept the rating on review for downgrade. The rating action, affecting $315 million in debt, reflects the university's extremely narrow unrestricted liquidity, resulting in reliance on external credit facilities to support operations, and prolonged severe cash flow deficits leading to financial resource erosion. The rating remains on review for downgrade to evaluate audited fiscal 2013 results, expected in March, and management's execution of strategic initiatives to improve liquidity and operating performance. Fairfax County’s (VA) Outlook Revised to Negative; Aaa GO Rating Affirmed Jan. 8 – As we affirmed the Aaa long-term rating affecting approximately $2 billion of outstanding general obligation debt for Fairfax County, we assigned an Aaa rating to its $305 million Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds. The bonds are secured by the county's general obligation unlimited tax pledge. The county's outlook has been revised to negative from stable. The negative outlook reflects recent declines in the county's available reserves to levels that are below average when compared to other Aaa-rated entities.

8

MOODY’S WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION

JANUARY 16, 2014

CREDIT RATINGS & ANALYSIS
Michel Madelain President and Chief Operating Officer Michael Rowan Managing Director, Global Public, Project & Infrastructure Finance Gail Sussman Managing Director, US Public Finance John Nelson Director of Research, Global Public, Project, Infrastructure Finance Christopher Holmes Director of Research, US Public Finance

State Government Ratings
Robert Kurtter Managing Director, US Public Finance Tim Blake Managing Director, US Public Finance

EDITORIAL CONTENT
Crystal Carrafiello Senior Vice President, Rating Communications Robert Cox Senior Editor, Rating Communications

Healthcare, Higher Education, Not-for-Profits
Kendra Smith Managing Director, US Public Finance

MARKETING & PRODUCT STRATEGY
John Walter Director, Senior Product Strategist Sara Harris Assistant Director, Product Strategist

Housing
Kendra Smith Managing Director, US Public Finance

PRODUCTION
Jason Lee Vice President, Production

Local Government Ratings
Jack Dorer Managing Director, US Public Finance Naomi Richman Managing Director, US Public Finance

Public Infrastructure
Chee Mee Hu Managing Director, Project Finance

WEBSITE

www.moodys.com

CLIENT SERVICE DESKS

New York: 1.212.553.1653 San Francisco: 1.415.274.1700

© 2014 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. (“MIS”) AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (“MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO CONSIDER MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS IN MAKING ANY INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moody’s Publications. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. MIS, a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MIS have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MIS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS’s ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Shareholder Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.” For Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail clients. It would be dangerous for “retail clients” to make any investment decision based on MOODY’S credit rating. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser.

MOODYS.COM
Report: 162843

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful