articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/241031-comparative-statistics-non-u-s-social-housing-providers-ratings-risk-indicators-ratings-pressure-has-eased-13296853.xml content esgSubNav
In This List
COMMENTS

Comparative Statistics: Non-U.S. Social Housing Providers Ratings Risk Indicators: Ratings Pressure Has Eased

COMMENTS

Instant Insights: Key Takeaways From Our Research

COMMENTS

The Autumn Budget Kicks Off A Funding Regime Revision For U.K. Public Sector Entities

COMMENTS

Institutional Framework Assessment: U.K. Local Authorities

COMMENTS

U.K. Social Housing Providers' Financial Capacity Shrinks On Investment Needs


Comparative Statistics: Non-U.S. Social Housing Providers Ratings Risk Indicators: Ratings Pressure Has Eased

S&P Global Ratings assigns issuer credit ratings to public and nonprofit social housing providers (SHPs), based on its qualitative and quantitative analysis of industry risk, market position, management and governance, financial performance, debt profile, and liquidity. This report provides comparative statistics for the 60 rated SHPs outside the U.S.

We continue to think that the non-U.S. SHP sector has reached a turning point. This is despite a general weakening of financial indicators since our previous report on ratings risk indicators from March 2024 and a slower recovery than we had anticipated in our sector outlook from November 2023.

Stock Quality Remains A Priority

We consider that cost pressures lingered for longer than we had forecast across most regions where we rate SHPs, while interest rates remained relatively high. At the same time, the focus remained on fire and building safety, as well as the quality of homes and energy efficiency, resulting in high investments in existing homes. We expect rent increases will exceed cost inflation over the coming years, which should support the sector's financial performance.

At the same time, SHPs are scaling back on developing new homes, reducing the debt-funding need. Nonetheless, we project debt metrics will weaken on average across our rated SHPs in Germany, France, and Sweden. In the U.K., we project debt metrics will recover at a modest rate.

We expect our ratings on non-U.S. SHPs will remain largely within the 'A' category (see chart 1). This view is underpinned by a significant reduction of the negative bias we observe across our ratings. With the gradually reducing proportion of negative outlooks across the portfolio, partially balanced by the number of positive outlooks, we continue to think that we are at a turning point in the rating cycle. Yet we note that the recovery would differ materially among SHPs and that it would be modest in many cases.

Chart 1

image

As of Sept. 30, 2024, 17% of ratings had a negative outlook, down from 33% on Dec. 31, 2022, when negative bias had reached its highest level since 2014. At the same time, 10% of ratings had a positive outlook, the highest number we have seen over the same period (see chart 2).

Chart 2

image

We consider that non-U.S. SHPs' financial performance, measured by the consolidated groups' S&P Global Ratings-adjusted EBITDA margins, is a solid indicator of creditworthiness and underpins the ratings. Non-U.S. SHPs rated 'AA-' or above typically have adjusted EBITDA margins above 30%, which gradually decline to an average of less than 25% for SHPs rated in the 'A' category, and to less than 20% for SHPs rated in the 'BBB' category. However, the difference between the lowest and highest adjusted EBITDA margins increases with the rating category (see chart 3).

Chart 3

image

The stronger SHPs' debt metrics, the higher the likelihood for a higher rating (see chart 4). Most entities rated 'AA-' or above have an adjusted debt-to-nonsales-EBITDA ratio below 17x that is gradually increasing to about 25x for entities rated in the 'A' category. Debt to EBITDA started to exceed 30x for SHPs rated at the lower end of the 'A' category, deteriorating further to above 35x across SHPs in the 'BBB' category. Equally, entities rated 'AA-' or above have a very strong adjusted nonsales EBITDA interest coverage that exceeds 3x. The interest coverage ratio declines to 1.8x on average for entities rated in the 'A' category and below 0.8x for entities rated in the 'BBB' category.

Chart 4

image

Our assessment of SHPs' liquidity ratios does not have the same correlation with the ratings as the debt ratios, but we consider that liquidity coverage remains solid across our non-U.S. SHPs, supported by an average liquidity ratio of 2.0x on average.

Since non-U.S. SHPs have a public policy role and strong ties with governments, the issuer credit ratings on these entities combine our assessment of the stand-alone credit profile (SACP) and the likelihood of extraordinary government support. In the case of SHPs, the application of our criteria for government-related entities could raise the final issuer credit rating relative to the SACP.

'AAA/AA'

We assume that most SHPs rated 'AA-' or above would receive sufficient support from related highly rated governments in case of financial distress. Our highest-rated entity, Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (Kainga Ora), is a New Zealand government (Crown) agency, deeply integrated in the implementation of the government's social housing policy. While the agency's significant development pipeline is driving weaker financial performance and interest coverage, resulting in an assessment of its SACP at 'bbb+', we equalize our ratings on Kainga Ora with the sovereign credit rating on New Zealand at 'AAA'. The only rating on an entity at this rating level that does not benefit from an uplift is that on U.K.-based SHP Local Space. This entity has arrangements with local authorities under a unique operating model, which we think will continue to support its strong financial performance relative to peers and underpin its 'aa-' SACP.

We think the board and executive teams of SHPs in the 'AA' category tend to manage operations effectively and in line with consistent, realistic, and long-term plans that are underpinned by prudent treasury and liquidity management. They focus on core rental activities and ensure no or immaterial exposure to riskier activities, such as the development of homes for sale. They typically operate under a solid regulatory framework. The four Swedish SHPs benefit from a track record of support from their municipal owners.

The financial performance of SHPs in the 'AA' category is solid, but some face challenges that are similar to those lower-rated SHPs are exposed to. Adjusted EBITDA margins have declined to a five-year average of 32% in October 2024, from 34% in March 2024. However, the financial performance of SHPs in the 'AA' category remains strong relative other SHPs, underpinned by their resilient and flexible operations.

Adjusted debt to nonsales EBITDA remained largely unchanged across the 'AA' category between October and March 2024, at 14x, on a five-year average. In contrast, the adjusted nonsales EBITDA interest coverage declined to 3.6x, from 3.7x, over the same period. Again, these debt metrics are strong, compared with other SHPs we rate.

Liquidity, on the other hand, is weaker than the average across our ratings portfolio, with the average liquidity ratio remaining at 1.5x. This is mainly due to the fact that these SHPs can sustain lower liquidity coverages since they would typically be offset by strong ties with their respective governments or local authorities, which provide ongoing liquidity support or are likely to provide extraordinary support if necessary.

Table 1

Non-U.S. social housing providers--Rating score snapshot ('AAA/AA' rated)
Country Entity Long-term local currency issuer credit rating Outlook SACP Enterprise risk profile Industry risk Regulatory framework Market dependencies Management and governance Financial risk profile Financial performance Debt profile Liquidity
Canada

Toronto Community Housing Corp.

AA- Stable a+ 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 2 2
Germany

Muenchner Wohnen GmbH (formerly Gewofag Holding GmbH)

AA- Stable a+ 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 2
Netherlands

Stichting Stadgenoot

AA Stable aa- 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2
New Zealand

Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities

AAA Stable bbb+ 2 2 1 1 2 5 5 6 3
Sweden

AB Stangastaden

AA- Stable a+ 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 3

Fastighets AB Forvaltaren

AA- Stable a+ 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 3

Forvaltnings AB Framtiden

AA- Negative a+ 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 3

Stockholms Kooperativa Bostadsforening

AA- Stable a+ 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
U.K.

Local Space

AA- Stable aa- 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 4 2
All factors are based on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being the strongest and 6 being the weakest. Issuer credit ratings as of Sept. 30, 2024. SACP--Stand-alone credit profile. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Table 2

Non-U.S. social housing providers--Risk indicators ('AAA/AA' rated)
Country Entity Number of units own and managed Average general needs rent as % of market rent Vacancy rates (%) S&P Global Ratings-adjusted EBITDA/adjusted operating revenue (%) Debt/adjusted nonsales EBITDA (x) Adjusted nonsales EBITDA/interest (x) Liquidity ratio (x)
2023 2023 Three-year average Five-year average Five-year average Five-year average Latest base case
Canada

Toronto Community Housing Corp.

56,246 37 1.9 24.7 10.7 2.4 1.3
Germany

Muenchner Wohnen GmbH (formerly Gewofag Holding GmbH)

70,628 53 0.4 33.0 16.7 3.9 2.1
Netherlands

Stichting Stadgenoot

35,298 40 2.6 37.9 15.5 1.8 1.7
New Zealand

Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities

72,035 47 2.3 20.0 38.1 1.1 1.2
Sweden

AB Stangastaden

18,747 N/A 1.1 27.7 9.4 5.8 1.0

Fastighets AB Forvaltaren

6,627 N/A 2.4 23.1 12.8 6.0 1.2

Forvaltnings AB Framtiden

75,767 N/A 1.5 19.7 16.6 3.8 1.1

Stockholms Kooperativa Bostadsforening

8,484 N/A 0.2 38.5 12.7 3.7 1.3
U.K.

Local Space

2,801 73 0.5 54.7 15.3 1.6 2.1
2023 refers to fiscal year-end (Dec. 31, 2023, or March 31, 2024, depending on fiscal year-end) and refers to actuals whenever available, then estimates or base cases whenever available. Three-year averages cover the last three fiscal years. Five-year averages cover last two fiscal years, the current fiscal year, and the next two fiscal years. N/A--Not available. Source: S&P Global Ratings.
'A'

The largest number (48) of non-U.S. SHPs are in the 'A' category, with three entities in France, eight in Germany, and 37 in the U.K. While government support plays a role in this rating category as well, entities with an SACP of 'a+' typically have a solid enough creditworthiness. We therefore do not apply any uplift for government support as we do not think that they would need it.

In this rating category, SHPs have a more pronounced exposure to sales risk, that is, they are developing a higher proportion of new homes to sell. In our view, this could create volatility on financial indicators and is reflected in a weaker industry risk assessment. We typically assess management and governance as relatively solid in this rating category but consider that some of the lower-rated SHPs in this category have less consistent strategies, resulting in a marginally negative assessment.

Financial performance differs significantly within this rating category. While the five-year average across SHPs has remained largely unchanged at 25% between March and October 2024, the financial performance is much stronger at the 'A+' rating level--at close to 30%--than at the 'A-' rating level, where adjusted EBITDA margins are below 20% on a five-year average.

The average debt to adjusted nonsales EBITDA remained largely unchanged at 22x between March and October 2024, while the average interest coverage weakened to 1.8x on average in October 2024, compared with 2.1x in March 2024. The difference between 'A+' and the 'A-' rated SHPs is material, with 'A+' rated SHPs typically having a debt to non-sales adjusted EBITDA of 17x and an interest coverage of 2.1x, versus 26x and 1.2x, respectively, for SHPs in the 'A-' category.

Two of the 'A-' rated SHPs have a negative outlook, indicating that we could lower the ratings on them to the 'BBB' category. The reasons for the negative outlooks are largely the same for both SHPs, namely weakening credit metrics due to increasing investments in existing homes, which reduce adjusted EBITDA and adjusted nonsales EBITDA and impair financial performance and debt metrics.

Table 3

Non-U.S. social housing providers--Rating score snapshot ('A' rated)
Country Entity LT LC ICR Outlook SACP Enterprise risk profile Industry risk Regulatory framework Market dependencies Management and governance Financial risk profile Financial performance Debt profile Liquidity
France

Grand Delta Habitat

A Positive a- 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 5 3

SACVL

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3

Toulouse Metropole Habitat O.P.H.

A Stable a- 2 2 2 3 2 4 4 5 3
Germany

Berlinovo Immobilien Gesellschaft mbH

A- Positive bbb+ 3 2 3 5 3 3 4 4 2

degewo AG

A+ Positive a+ 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2

GBG Unternehmensgruppe GmbH

A+ Negative a- 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 2

GEWOBA Aktiengesellschaft Wohnen und Bauen

A Stable a 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2

Gewobag Wohnungsbau-Aktiengesellschaft Berlin

A Stable a- 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 2

HOWOGE Wohnungsbaugesellschaft mbH

A Stable a- 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 3

Nassauische Heimstätte

A+ Stable a- 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 3

Wohnungsbau Ludwigsburg Gmbh

A- Positive bbb+ 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4
U.K.

Accent Group Ltd.

A Stable a- 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 2

Anchor Hanover Group

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 3 2 2 3 5 2 2

Apex Housing Association Ltd.

A- Stable bbb 3 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 3

Aster Group Ltd.

A Stable a- 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 2

bpha Ltd.

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2

Bromford Housing Group Limited

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2

Chelmer Housing Partnership

A- Stable bbb 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 2

Clarion Housing Group Ltd.

A- Stable bbb+ 3 3 3 2 3 4 5 5 2

ClwydAlyn Housing Ltd

A Stable bbb+ 3 2 2 4 3 4 4 5 3

Cross Keys Homes Ltd.

A+ Stable a 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 4 3

East Midlands Housing Group Ltd

A Stable a- 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 2

Futures Housing Group Ltd.

A+ Negative a 2 2 3 3 2 4 4 5 2

Gentoo Group

A- Stable bbb 3 2 3 4 3 4 5 5 2

Guinness Partnership (The)

A- Stable bbb 3 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 2

Home Group Ltd.

A- Stable bbb+ 3 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 2

Housing 21

A- Stable bbb 3 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 3

Housing Solutions

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 2

Hyde Housing Association Ltd

A- Stable bbb+ 3 3 3 1 3 4 5 5 1

Incommunities Group Ltd.

A Negative a- 3 2 3 3 3 4 5 4 2

Karbon Homes Ltd.

A Positive a- 3 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 2

Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Ltd.

A- Stable bbb 3 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1

Link Group Ltd.

A Stable a- 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 3

Metropolitan Thames Valley

A- Stable bbb 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 6 2

Notting Hill Genesis

A- Negative bbb 3 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 2

Paradigm Housing Group Ltd.

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 5 2

Peabody Trust

A- Negative bbb 3 2 3 1 4 4 5 6 2

Places for People Group Ltd.

A- Stable bbb 3 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 2

Platform Housing Group Ltd.

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 2

Plymouth Community Homes Ltd

A+ Positive a+ 2 2 3 1 2 3 5 2 1

Richmond Housing Partnership

A Stable a- 3 2 3 2 3 4 5 5 1

Sanctuary Housing Assn.

A Negative a- 3 2 3 2 3 4 5 5 2

Sovereign Housing Association Ltd.

A Negative a- 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 5 3

Stonewater Ltd.

A Negative a- 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 2

Thrive Homes Ltd.

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 5 1

VIVID Housing Limited

A Stable a- 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 3

Wheatley Housing Group Ltd.

A+ Stable a+ 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 2

Wrekin Housing Group Ltd.

A Negative a- 2 2 3 3 2 4 4 5 3
All factors are based on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being the strongest and 6 being the weakest. Issuer credit ratings as of Sept. 30, 2024. ICR--Issuer credit rating. LC--Local currency. LT--Long-term. SACP--Stand-alone credit profile. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Table 4

Non-U.S. social housing providers--Risk indicators ('A' rated)
Country Entity Number of units own and managed Average general needs rent as % of market rent Vacancy rates (%) S&P Global Ratings-adjusted EBITDA/adjusted operating revenue (%) Debt/adjusted nonsales EBITDA (x) Adjusted nonsales EBITDA/interest (x) Liquidity ratio (x)
2023 2023 Three-year average Five-year average Five-year average Five-year average Latest base case
France

Grand Delta Habitat

39,137 52 3.6 33.5 25.3 1.9 1.4

SACVL

8,410 70 2.2 42.2 13.3 2.4 1.3

Toulouse Metropole Habitat O.P.H.

18,916 54 2.4 26.8 27.8 1.6 1.1
Germany

Berlinovo Immobilien Gesellschaft mbH

29,808 81 3.8 29.0 17.6 2.1 3.2

degewo AG

82,238 90 1.9 41.0 14.1 5.4 1.4

GBG Unternehmensgruppe GmbH

19,774 84 1.2 19.7 18.5 3.5 2.0

GEWOBA Aktiengesellschaft Wohnen und Bauen

43,088 90 0.5 34.7 8.6 9.0 2.0

Gewobag Wohnungsbau-Aktiengesellschaft Berlin

77,391 90 2.0 33.4 24.6 2.5 1.8

HOWOGE Wohnungsbaugesellschaft mbH

77,542 90 1.5 42.2 18.9 4.2 1.2

Nassauische Heimstätte

60,883 82 3.5 29.7 14.5 4.3 1.6

Wohnungsbau Ludwigsburg Gmbh

2,542 80 3.0 29.6 55.8 3.2 1.0
U.K.

Accent Group Ltd.

20,689 60 1.3 21.0 21.2 1.4 2.5

Anchor Hanover Group

54,753 73 1.0 10.8 13.1 2.1 1.6

Apex Housing Association Ltd.

7,442 54 1.2 17.0 32.0 1.1 1.6

Aster Group Ltd.

36,414 57 1.2 22.6 20.6 1.3 2.3

bpha Ltd.

19,757 60 0.9 36.2 17.4 1.4 2.1

Bromford Housing Group Limited

46,437 55 1.3 32.0 17.3 1.7 2.3

Chelmer Housing Partnership

11,522 54 1.2 28.7 21.9 1.0 2.3

Clarion Housing Group Ltd.

124,777 48 1.8 19.6 24.4 1.1 2.1

ClwydAlyn Housing Ltd

6,390 85 2.9 20.8 22.3 1.3 1.7

Cross Keys Homes Ltd.

12,538 60 0.5 30.8 16.6 1.3 1.7

East Midlands Housing Group Ltd

21,795 64 1.6 23.5 19.3 1.1 2.4

Futures Housing Group Ltd.

10,502 65 1.2 21.9 22.4 1.3 2.0

Gentoo Group

29,700 70 1.4 16.0 20.9 0.9 2.5

Guinness Partnership (The)

64,709 64 0.8 15.3 26.9 0.9 1.6

Home Group Ltd.

56,200 65 2.9 13.5 23.0 1.1 1.9

Housing 21

22,885 73 2.6 11.3 23.8 1.1 1.4

Housing Solutions

6,438 50 1.3 37.2 16.3 1.3 3.1

Hyde Housing Association Ltd

43,972 48 0.6 14.2 31.9 0.9 2.5

Incommunities Group Ltd.

22,672 70 1.5 16.2 18.8 1.5 2.8

Karbon Homes Ltd.

31,771 71 1.8 22.2 13.9 1.8 1.8

Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Ltd.

12,651 66 2.1 12.9 22.6 1.1 9.2

Link Group Ltd.

15,057 68 0.8 24.1 19.2 1.5 1.0

Metropolitan Thames Valley

56,947 50 1.6 21.1 24.6 0.9 2.0

Notting Hill Genesis

67,110 50 1.5 17.7 29.5 0.8 1.9

Paradigm Housing Group Ltd.

16,237 60 0.7 35.3 20.5 1.3 2.2

Peabody Trust

107,449 48 1.3 16.6 32.7 0.7 1.9

Places for People Group Ltd.

240,129 54 1.6 18.6 25.1 0.9 1.5

Platform Housing Group Ltd.

48,082 64 1.5 30.6 16.3 1.8 1.9

Plymouth Community Homes Ltd

16,180 47 0.6 15.5 10.9 2.7 2.6

Richmond Housing Partnership

11,142 40 1.7 16.5 23.6 1.3 3.0

Sanctuary Housing Assn.

119,695 55 1.5 19.1 20.5 1.2 1.6

Sovereign Housing Association Ltd.

84,943 52 1.8 23.7 24.2 1.2 1.4

Stonewater Ltd.

36,981 66 0.9 27.3 22.6 1.2 2.2

Thrive Homes Ltd.

5,750 55 1.1 31.9 23.0 1.1 2.5

VIVID Housing Limited

34,325 57 1.1 34.3 18.1 1.5 1.2

Wheatley Housing Group Ltd.

64,977 60 1.1 24.4 17.8 1.4 1.5

Wrekin Housing Group Ltd.

13,941 66 1.0 26.4 21.3 1.2 2.2
2023 refers to fiscal year-end (Dec. 31, 2023, or March 31, 2024, depending on fiscal year-end) and refers to actuals whenever available, then estimates or base cases whenever available. Three-year averages cover the last three fiscal years. Five-year averages cover the last two fiscal years, the current fiscal year, and the next two fiscal years. Source: S&P Global Ratings.
'BBB'

We rate three SHPs in the 'BBB' category, all based in the U.K. We have a relatively negative view of these SHPs' management and governance because we think that decisions and strategies limit their flexibility to adjust plans, thereby significantly weakening their respective credit metrics.

We consider that the outcome of these decisions--be it early debt funding, accelerated investments in existing homes, large development sites for new homes, or potential underinvestment in existing homes--made it more challenging for them than others to take efficient actions to mitigate the headwinds over the past two years.

All SHPs in the 'BBB' category have adjusted EBITDA margins below 20%, debt to EBITDA ratios exceeding 35x, and interest coverage well below 1x.

Table 5

Non-U.S. social housing providers--Rating score snapshot ('BBB' rated)
Country Entity Long-term local currency issuer credit rating Outlook SACP Enterprise risk profile Industry risk Regulatory framework Market dependencies Management and governance Financial risk profile Financial performance Debt profile Liquidity
U.K.

Hexagon Housing Assocation Limited

BBB+ Stable bbb- 3 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 3

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

BBB+ Stable bbb- 3 2 3 2 4 4 5 6 2

Paragon Asra Housing Ltd.

BBB+ Stable bbb- 3 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 3
All factors are based on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being the strongest and 6 being the weakest. Issuer credit ratings as of Sept. 30, 2024. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Table 6

Non-U.S. social housing providers--Risk indicators ('BBB' rated)
Country Entity Number of units own and managed Average general needs rent as % of market rent Vacancy rates (%) S&P Global Ratings-adjusted EBITDA/adjusted operating revenue (%) Debt/adjusted nonsales EBITDA (x) Adjusted nonsales EBITDA/interest (x) Liquidity ratio (x)
2023 2023 Three-year average Five-year average Five-year average Five-year average Latest base case
U.K.

Hexagon Housing Assocation Limited

4,492 37 1.2 16.4 66.5 0.9 1.7

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

108,326 46 2.4 15.7 39.5 0.7 2.0

Paragon Asra Housing Ltd.

23,993 60 2.4 19.9 36.8 0.7 2.0
2023 refers to fiscal year-end (Dec. 31, 2023, or March 31, 2024, depending on fiscal year-end) and refers to actuals whenever available, then estimates or base cases whenever available. Three-year averages cover the last three fiscal years. Five-year averages cover the last two fiscal years, the current fiscal year, and the next two fiscal years. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Related Criteria

Related Research

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analyst:Karin Erlander, London + 44 20 7176 3584;
karin.erlander@spglobal.com
Secondary Contacts:Felix Ejgel, London + 44 20 7176 6780;
felix.ejgel@spglobal.com
Noa Fux, London + 44 20 7176 0730;
noa.fux@spglobal.com
Additional Contacts:Mahek Bhojani, London +44 2071760846;
mahek.bhojani@spglobal.com
Abril A Canizares, London + 44 20 7176 0161;
abril.canizares@spglobal.com
Tim Chow, CFA, London +44 2071760684;
tim.chow@spglobal.com
Sabine Daehn, Frankfurt + 49 693 399 9106;
sabine.daehn@spglobal.com
Freja L Dobreff, Stockholm +46 84405938;
freja.dobreff@spglobal.com
Ekaterina Ermolenko, Stockholm 46 708 770 286;
ekaterina.ermolenko@spglobal.com
Adam J Gillespie, Toronto + 1 (416) 507 2565;
adam.gillespie@spglobal.com
Rebecca Hrvatin, Melbourne + 61 3 9631 2123;
rebecca.hrvatin@spglobal.com
Matthew R Hyde, London +44 20 71760456;
m.hyde@spglobal.com
Stefan Keitel, Frankfurt + 49 693 399 9254;
stefan.keitel@spglobal.com
Natalia Legeeva, London 44 20 7176 0618;
natalia.legeeva@spglobal.com
Dennis Nilsson, Stockholm + 46 84 40 5354;
dennis.nilsson@spglobal.com
Etienne Polle, Paris (+33) 01 40 75 25 11;
etienne.polle@spglobal.com
Didre Schneider, Frankfurt +49 69 33 999 244;
didre.schneider@spglobal.com
Colleen Sheridan, London +44-20-7176-0561;
colleen.sheridan@spglobal.com
Hugo Soubrier, Paris +33 1 40 75 25 79;
hugo.soubrier@spglobal.com
Michael Stroschein, Frankfurt + 49 693 399 9251;
michael.stroschein@spglobal.com
Beatrice de Taisne, CFA, London + 44 20 7176 3938;
beatrice.de.taisne@spglobal.com
Niklas Steinert, Frankfurt + 49 693 399 9248;
niklas.steinert@spglobal.com

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.

 

Create a free account to unlock the article.

Gain access to exclusive research, events and more.

Already have an account?    Sign in