Overview
S&P Global Ratings took 59 rating actions, made 26 outlook revisions, and placed five ratings on CreditWatch within the U.S. municipal water and sewer utilities sector in fourth-quarter 2024. We also affirmed eighty-two ratings with no outlook revisions.
Table 1
| U.S. Municipal Water & Sewer Utilities Rating Actions, 2024 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Quarter | Second Quarter | Third Quarter | Fourth Quarter | |
| New rating | 17 | 9 | 15 | 18 |
| Upgrade | 8 | 9 | 11 | 6 |
| Downgrade | 11 | 34 | 22 | 35 |
| Favourable outlook revision | 7 | 11 | 8 | 3 |
| Unfavourable outlook revision | 5 | 13 | 13 | 23 |
| Removed from CreditWatch | 1 | 45 | 5 | 5 |
| CreditWatch with negative implications | 73 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Maintained ratings with no outlook revision | 72 | 112 | 103 | 82 |
| CreditWatch developing | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Negative rating actions exceeded positive actions by almost six to one. Unfavorable outlook revisions exceeded favorable revisions by 23 to three. Bond issuance increased against fourth-quarter 2023 and was also higher than in fourth-quarter 2022. Rating movement increased, with more credit changes in the fourth quarter than in fourth-quarter 2023 and 2022. In fourth-quarter 2024 there was significantly more negative rating pressure than in fourth-quarter 2023.
Fourth-Quarter Rating Actions
In fourth-quarter 2024, we lowered thirty-five ratings and raised six. Positive rating actions were primarily driven by strong management practices leading to stronger debt service coverage (DSC) and liquidity, while negative rating actions were primarily due to deterioration in DSC and liquidity. Several negative rating actions were a result of elevated environmental, social, and governance factors such as limited transparency, poor risk management, and exposure to climate risks.
Fourth-Quarter Outlook Revisions And CreditWatch Actions
In the fourth quarter, we made twenty-three unfavorable outlook revisions and three favorable. Negative outlook revisions were mostly due to rising operating costs, in particular for smaller systems, that we believe will persist absent full cost recovery and could pressure financial metrics. Positive outlook revisions primarily reflected growth in liquidity and continued service area expansion that we believe is sustainable.
We placed five ratings on CreditWatch with negative implications. Three were for utilities that reported infrastructure damage from Hurricane Helene that we believe may affect credit quality.
Fourth-Quarter Lookback
During the fourth quarter, S&P Global Ratings published its U.S. municipal water and sewer utilities national medians report. Median financial performance for the sector diminished in fiscal 2023, with downgrades outpacing upgrades, consistent with our current negative view of the sector. The sector currently has flat-to-declining median financial metrics that we believe reflect tightening margins, as most utilities are operating in a new-baseline environment with higher cost-of-service requirements and rising environmental and regulatory challenges. For more information, see "U.S. Municipal Water And Sewer Utilities Navigate A New Environment As Performance Drops" published Nov. 5, 2024, on RatingsDirect.
In addition, S&P Global Ratings published a commentary that discussed municipal utility credit quality in California. We believe rising costs and affordability risks will steadily increase as California municipalities adapt to more extreme weather patterns, bolster supply resiliency, and invest in storage. Rating downgrades outpaced upgrades in 2024 in California and expect this trend to continue through 2025, again consistent with our current negative view of the sector. For more information, see "California Utilities Enter Period Of Significant Capital Spending That May Strain Water And Sewer Rate Affordability" published Oct. 3, 2024.
Table 2
| U.S. Municipal Water & Sewer Utilities Rating Actions, Summary Fourth-Quarter 2024 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entity | State | Rating to | Rating from | Outlook to | Outlook from | CreditWatch | Reason |
| Salinas | CA | BBB+ | AA- | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | The downgrade reflects our view of the utility's weak financial performance trend based on weak cost-recovery practices. The CreditWatch reflects our view that we could lower the rating if the system is unable to restore debt service coverage above its rate covenant of 1.2x, its liquidity position weakens further below 90 days' cash, or if management's efforts to implement multiyear rate increases beginning in 2025 are unsuccessful. |
| Hallandale Beach | FL | A+ | Stable | New rating | |||
| Pagosa Area Water & Sanitation District | CO | A | Stable | New rating | |||
| Schererville Town | IN | A- | A+ | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the utility's weakened liquidity position and thin projected coverage over the outlook period. | |
| Coastside County Water District | CA | AA- | Stable | New rating | |||
| Lake Orion Village | MI | A- | Stable | New rating | |||
| Hermiston | OR | A | A- | Stable | Stable | The rating upgrade reflects our view of the utility system's strong coverage and growing liquidity. | |
| Cullman County | AL | BBB | BBB+ | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the volatility in the county's financial profile in recent years as it has dealt with rising operating expenses, including increases in the cost of water. | |
| Oakland | CA | AA+ | AA+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | The CreditWatch action follows our opinion of the city's published fiscal 2025 first-quarter report that revealed significant estimated deviations from the city's adjusted fiscal 2025 general-purpose-fund budget and preliminary net results for fiscal year-end 2024. |
| Houston County Water Authority | AL | BBB | A- | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflects the authority's trend of declining liquidity, with a lack of formal long-term financial and capital planning, and our expectation that anticipated rate increases may not be significant enough to generate excess revenues to make a material difference in liquidity. | |
| McAllen | TX | AA- | AA | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the city's operational risks associated with water scarcity and ongoing water supply issues, combined with its lower nominal liquidity and socioeconomic metrics. | |
| Burkburnett | TX | BBB+ | A | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of the utility's materially weakened all-in debt service coverage and our expectation that the utility's already thin liquidity could deteriorate further. | |
| Toledo | OH | AA- | AA- | Stable | Negative | The outlook revision reflects our view of the city's progress in addressing its capital program, including Ohio Environmental Protection Agency requirements to find a second water source, and its projected steady financial performance and maintenance of cash. | |
| Manchester | GA | BB+ | BBB- | Negative | Negative | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of the city's weak and volatile financial profile, historical trend of insufficient all-in debt service coverage, and thin cash reserves, as well as our view that the city may have operating shortfalls over the next several fiscal years, even with its pre-approved rate increases through 2028. | |
| Butler Utilities Board | AL | BB | BBB+ | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of ongoing governance risks concerning risk management, culture, and oversight, including inadequate budgeting practices that have led to insufficient coverage in fiscal years 2022 and 2023; vulnerable unrestricted liquidity levels; and transparency and reporting. | |
| Rayburn Country Municipal Utility District | TX | BBB | BBB | Negative | Not meaningful | The outlook reflects our uncertainty that the utility's future rate increases will rise commensurate with annual debt service. | |
| Cherokee Metropolitan District | CO | A | A | Positive | Stable | The positive outlook reflects our opinion of the district's reduced regulatory pressure related to its wastewater treatment plant's total dissolved solids discharge, which decreases operational risk and improves our opinion of its substantial liquidity reserves and reasonably low rates. | |
| Borough Of Ambridge Municipal Authority | PA | BBB | A- | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of deterioration in the authority's financial profile, with debt service coverage below sufficiency, a downward trend in unrestricted available reserves, and uncertainty surrounding the upcoming contract negotiations with wholesale customers. | |
| Terre Haute | IN | BBB | BBB+ | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of the city's rising annual debt service, which will materially diminish all-in debt service coverage in the near term, with management having no plans to raise sewer fees. | |
| Greeneville | TN | A+ | A+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | The CreditWatch placement reflects our view of the utility's reported infrastructure damage from Hurricane Helene, which we believe may result in operating challenges, permanent ratepayer displacement, increased leverage, and corresponding negative economic pressure on the underlying service areas. |
| Golden | CO | A+ | Stable | New rating | |||
| Pompano Beach | FL | AA- | Stable | New rating | |||
| Hermann | MO | BBB | BBB | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects our view of the city sewer system's recent increase in operational costs that have pushed financial margins to narrow levels, along with the increased capital spending requirements and debt needs that could pressure the sufficiency of the current revenue requirement. | |
| Auburn | IN | A+ | A+ | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the city's waterworks system's recent increase in operational costs that have weakened financial margins. | |
| West Melbourne | FL | AA- | NR | Stable | New rating | ||
| Zionsville | IN | A+ | AA- | Stable | Negative | The downgrade reflects additional near-term debt needs that will lower debt service coverage significantly. | |
| Limon | CO | A- | A | Negative | Stable | The downgrade reflects the town's significant decrease in unrestricted liquidity and all-in debt service coverage. | |
| Owassa Brownville Water Authority | AL | BB+ | A- | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the authority's recent trend of declining and inconsistent debt service coverage, in addition to weak governance controls, including lack of budgeting or forecasting practices. | |
| Laredo | TX | AA- | AA- | Negative | Not meaningful | The negative outlook reflects uncertainty about the city's future financial performance and the need for additional clarity on its upcoming rate plan, extensive capital needs and proposed debt-financing of projects. | |
| Emerald Coast Utility Authority | FL | A+ | A | Stable | Stable | The upgrade reflects our view of the system's sustained improvement in available liquidity, ongoing execution of its consent-order-related corrective action plan contributing to improvements in system effectiveness, maintenance of very strong all-in debt service coverage, and proactive management. | |
| Texarkana | AR | A | A+ | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects a weakening in financial metrics as well as our expectation that debt service coverage will normalize at lower levels as a result of the additional debt and the decline in unrestricted liquidity. | |
| Aquilla Water Supply District | TX | BBB+ | A- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view that the general creditworthiness of AWSD's largest customer, the City of Hillsboro's utility system, has weakened. | |
| North Baldwin Utilities | AL | A | A+ | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the heightened risk of a potential contingent liquidity event due to its commitment to cover 50% of Baldwin Express Pipeline Cooperative District's pipeline reservation payments if Novelis Inc. is unwilling or unable to pay the reservation fee that supports the debt service on the bonds funding the pipeline's development. | |
| Tigard | OR | AA- | AA- | Positive | Stable | The positive outlook reflects the water system's growth in liquidity, extremely strong coverage that we expect will be maintained, a moderating debt profile, and continued expansion of the service area. | |
| City of Brooklet | GA | BBB | Stable | New rating | |||
| Santa Cruz | CA | BBB+ | A+ | Negative | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the city's insufficient net revenues to cover debt service, substantial decline in unrestricted liquidity, and our expectation that ongoing general fund support will be needed until the stormwater rates are increased. | |
| Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority | PA | A+ | A+ | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects our view of a diminished cash position, driven primarily by costs related to a consent decree, in conjunction with a large capital plan and expectations for declined coverage. | |
| Alligator Rural Water & Sewer Company | SC | BB+ | A- | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view that management is not setting rates at levels sufficient to sustain coverage above rate covenants. | |
| Marais Des Cygnes Public Utility Authority | KS | BBB- | BBB | Stable | Negative | The downgrade reflects our view of the authority's and its participants' weak financial profiles, with thin liquidity metrics and narrow operating margins. | |
| Caddo Basin Special Utility District | TX | A+ | AA- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the heightened debt leverage and our expectation that debt service coverage will stabilize at lower levels than historically achieved. | |
| Pleasant Hill | MO | A | Stable | New rating | |||
| California Statewide Communities Development Authority | CA | BBB- | Stable | New rating | |||
| Le Mars | IA | A | NR | Stable | New rating | ||
| Springs Valley Regional Water District | IN | BBB+ | A | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the district's recent trend of declining liquidity as well as its high water loss, which we believe will increase capital spending and water purchases over time. | |
| Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority | TX | A | Stable | New rating | |||
| Bennett Town | CO | BBB+ | Stable | New rating | |||
| Asheville | NC | AA+ | AA+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | The CreditWatch placement reflects our view of the utility's reported infrastructure damage from Hurricane Helene, which we believe may result in operating challenges, permanent ratepayer displacement, increased leverage, and corresponding negative economic pressure on the underlying service areas. |
| City of Covina | CA | A+ | AA- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the city wastewater system's recent increase in operational costs that have pushed financial margins to narrow levels, leading to all-in debt service coverage at more marginal levels in recent years. | |
| JEA | FL | AA+ | AA+ | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects our view of the authority's low nominal liquidity position, sizeable capital improvement program, and the potential lack of availability of its revolving credit facility should event-driven risks materialize. | |
| Mount Pleasant Town | SC | AAA | AA+ | Stable | Stable | The upgrade reflects management's historical and well-embedded policies and practices and plans, robust coverage and liquidity levels that are sustainable, continued service area growth, and management's willingness to raise rates while addressing ongoing capital projects. | |
| The Water Works Board of the City of Brewton | AL | BBB | BBB+ | Stable | Negative | The downgrade reflects our view of the board's volatile debt service coverage and thin liquidity reserves, which we expect will continue. | |
| Slocomb Water Works and Sewer Board | AL | BBB+ | A- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view that Slocomb's track record of fluctuating financial results and low cash position leave it at a heightened risk of material impacts from unforeseen events, particularly given its lack of comprehensive long-term planning and weaker economic demographics. | |
| Fallbrook Public Utility District | CA | AA- | A+ | Stable | Stable | The upgrade reflects our view of the wastewater system's improved historical financial performance and our expectation that it will maintain more robust all-in coverage and liquidity. | |
| Cudahy | WI | A | AA- | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of the utility's deteriorating financial position, as evidenced by all-in coverage; its additional debt needs to address infrastructure improvements; and our understanding that the utility may continue to produce less-than-sum-sufficient and weak coverage. | |
| Fort Smith | AR | A | A | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects our uncertainty regarding future rate approvals, given the magnitude of recent rate increases and subsequent rate-related challenges, and the direction of coverage in light of the city's regulatory-driven large capital improvement plan. | |
| Brighton | CO | AA- | AA | Stable | Negative | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our expectation that margins will narrow from historical peaks due to rising annual debt service; in addition, we anticipate some depletion within liquidity reserves to meet capital needs. | |
| Port Huron | MI | A | Stable | New rating | |||
| Belchertown Water District | MA | A+ | A+ | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the uncertainty regarding the district's ability to meet increased debt service obligations following rate increases in the near term. | |
| Pagosa Springs Sanitation General Improvement District | CO | BBB- | Stable | New rating | |||
| Healdsburg | CA | AA- | AA | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our opinion of the wastewater system's lower liquidity compared to historical levels and peers at the higher rating. | |
| Woonsocket | RI | BBB+ | A- | Negative | Not meaningful | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect reactive rate-setting resulting in financial erosion at the water fund, governance weaknesses in risk management and transparency, and our concern that near-term financial performance could weaken further if recently approved rate increases are insufficient to cover rising operating costs and sufficiently fund capital reinvestment in the system. | |
| Edinburg | TX | A | AA- | Negative | Not meaningful | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of the utility's weak risk management, culture, and oversight, our view of environmental physical risk stemming from exposure to ongoing regional water supply concerns, and the lack of clarity as to whether recently implemented rate increases will be sufficient to produce improved coverage and rebuild liquidity reserves. | |
| Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District | WA | AA- | AA- | Stable | Not meaningful | In April 2024, S&P Global Ratings withdrew its rating on the district due to lack of timely information, primarily pertaining to delayed fiscal 2022 audited results. The district's biennial 2023 audit (fiscal year-end Dec. 31) was released in June, making fiscal 2023 financials timely, in our view, and leading to the reinstatement. We understand the district is working with the state to improve the timeliness of audits and is also considering moving to an annual audit cycle. Furthermore, an independent accountant compiles annual, unaudited special-purpose financial statements that are timely and these reports largely mirror audited documents. The district's efforts to improve audit timeliness and demonstrate financial transparency mitigated our information timeliness issue. | |
| Erwin Utilities Authority | TN | A | A | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | The CreditWatch placement reflects our view of the utilities' reported infrastructure damage from Hurricane Helene, which we believe may result in operating challenges, permanent ratepayer displacement, increased leverage, and corresponding negative economic pressure on the underlying service areas. |
| Development Finance Authority of Summit County | OH | A | A- | Stable | Positive | The upgrade reflects increasing reserves, of which cash accounts for a greater portion, as well as the ongoing diversification of the pool, with 32 projects. | |
| Marion | IN | A | A+ | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the utility's $45 million in capital needs over the next eight years to complete its long-term control plan, which is pressured by its lack of rate-raising flexibility from weak economic factors. | |
| Monroe | LA | BBB+ | A | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of the city's governance risk, including its risk management, culture, and oversight, as evidenced by reactive rate-setting practices and uncertainty surrounding future rate-setting, as well as our view of the limited local economy and decreased coverage. | |
| Goshen | IN | A+ | NR | Stable | New rating | ||
| Bolivar Peninsula Special Utility District | TX | A | Stable | New rating | |||
| South Tahoe Public Utility District | CA | AA- | NR | Stable | New rating | ||
| Azusa | CA | AA- | AA | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the water system's recent decline in liquidity and fluctuating all-in debt service coverage in conjunction with rising water costs. | |
| Nodaway County Public Water Supply District No. 1 | MO | A- | A | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the district's weakened financial metrics, partially driven by its reactive rate-setting practices, and rising costs associated with the district's wholesale water provider that could lead to increased budgetary pressure. | |
| Atkinson County Solid Waste Management Authority | GA | A | A+ | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects our view of the authority's solid waste system's recent increase in operational costs that have pushed financial margins to narrow levels as compared with the utility's historical performance, leading to all-in debt service coverage at more marginal levels in recent years. | |
| Omaha Metropolitan Utility District | NE | AA+ | AA | Stable | Stable | The upgrade reflects the utility's strong revenue generation, which supports robust liquidity levels and the maintenance of all-in debt service coverage of at least 2x in historical years. | |
| Nipomo Community Services District | CA | A+ | AA- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the district's projected draw-down in wastewater reserves to $1.3 million for fiscal 2025, which we view as nominally thin; we believe the projected decline in reserves leaves the wastewater system susceptible to material impacts from unforeseen events, especially related to seismic exposure, flooding, and wildfires. | |
| Provo City | UT | AA | AA | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the wastewater system's nominally low cash position. | |
Table 3
| U.S. Municipal Water & Sewer Utilities Maintained Ratings, Summary Fourth-Quarter 2024 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Entity | State | Rating | Outlook |
| Fairburn | GA | A- | Negative |
| Calleguas Municial Water District | CA | AA+ | Stable |
| Lower Tule River Irrigation District | CA | A- | Stable |
| South Tahoe Public Utility District | CA | AA | Stable |
| West Lafayette | IN | A+ | Stable |
| Equitable School Revolving Fund | DE | A | Positive |
| South Island Public Service District | SC | AA+ | Stable |
| Virginia Resources Authority | VA | AAA | Stable |
| Cherokee County Water & Sewer Authority | GA | AA | Stable |
| Mashpee Water District | MA | AA | Stable |
| Cottonwood Improvement District | UT | AA | Stable |
| Goodyear | AZ | AA | Stable |
| San Jacinto River Authority - Highlands and Lake Conroe Divisions Water System | TX | AA- | Stable |
| Pasco County | FL | AA+ | Stable |
| Fuquay-Varina Town | NC | AA | Stable |
| City of Chicago | IL | A+ | Stable |
| Northeast Alabama Water Sewer & Fire Protection District | AL | A+ | Stable |
| Limestone County Water & Sewer Authority | AL | AA- | Stable |
| Winter Haven | FL | AA- | Stable |
| Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority | OH | A- | Stable |
| Tucson | AZ | AA | Stable |
| El Dorado Irrigation District | CA | AA- | Stable |
| Mon Valley Sewage Authority | PA | A- | Stable |
| Aurora | CO | AA+ | Stable |
| Corpus Christi | TX | AA- | Stable |
| San Jacinto River Authority - Groundwater Reduction Plan Project Storm Water Revenues | TX | BBB | Stable |
| Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority | PA | A+ | Stable |
| South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority | CT | AA- | Stable |
| Kentucky Association of Counties Finance Corporation | KY | AA- | Stable |
| Philadelphia | PA | A+ | Stable |
| Marshall | MI | A- | Stable |
| Yarmouth Water District | ME | AA | Stable |
| San Jacinto River Authority | TX | A+ | Stable |
| Lubbock | TX | AA | Stable |
| Atlanta | GA | AA- | Positive |
| South Bayside Waste Management Authority | CA | A+ | Stable |
| Columbus-Franklin County Finance Authority | OH | A- | Stable |
| Citizens Water Service | AL | A | Negative |
| Metro Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago | IL | AA+ | Stable |
| New Hampshire Municipal Bond Bank | NH | AA+ | Stable |
| Platteville | WI | AA- | Stable |
| Hooper Water Improvement District | UT | AA- | Stable |
| Dennis Water District | MA | AA+ | Stable |
| Portland | OR | AA+ | Stable |
| Guntersville Waterworks & Sewer Board | AL | A | Stable |
| Los Angeles Department of Water & Power | CA | AA+ | Stable |
| Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority | OH | A | Stable |
| Barnesville | GA | A | Stable |
| Colorado Water Resources & Power Development Authority | CO | AAA | Stable |
| Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District | UT | AA+ | Stable |
| Spotsylvania County | VA | AA+ | Stable |
| Dallas | TX | AAA | Stable |
| Eagle River Water & Sanitation District | CO | A+ | Stable |
| Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District | SC | AA | Stable |
| Manchester | NH | AA- | Stable |
| West Branch Sewer Authority | PA | A- | Stable |
| Dayton-Montgomery County Port Authority | OH | A- | Stable |
| Town of Huntertown | IN | A+ | Stable |
| Knox Chapman Utility District | TN | AA- | Stable |
| Loudoun County Sanitation Authority | VA | AAA | Stable |
| Lan Del Water District | KS | AA- | Stable |
| Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency | CA | AA | Stable |
| Bessemer | AL | A- | Stable |
| Nipomo Community Services District | CA | AA- | Stable |
| King County | WA | AA+ | Stable |
| Brunswick Cnty | NC | AA | Stable |
| The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Oxford | AL | A- | Stable |
| Salt Lake City | UT | AAA | Stable |
| Ocoee | FL | AA+ | Stable |
| Berthoud | CO | AA- | Stable |
| Fort Payne Waterworks Board | AL | A+ | Stable |
| Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority | OH | A- | Stable |
| Wyoming | MI | AA- | Stable |
| Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority | PA | A+ | Stable |
| Mid-Peninsula Water District | CA | AA | Stable |
| Erie Town | CO | AA- | Stable |
| Sandy City | UT | AA+ | Stable |
| Ohio Water Development Authority | OH | AAA | Stable |
This report does not constitute a rating action.
| Primary Credit Analyst: | Mallie Lange, Austin +1 2147655861; Mallie.Lange@spglobal.com |
| Secondary Contact: | Jenny Poree, San Francisco + 1 (415) 371 5044; jenny.poree@spglobal.com |
| Research Assistant: | Mehul Soni, Mumbai |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.