Overview
S&P Global Ratings expects stability in New York State local government (LG) credit quality, given the portfolio's demonstrated revenue, expenditure flexibility, and reserve growth. We anticipate that built-up reserve positions for LGs will help mitigate current and future economic headwinds. Currently, sales tax revenue growth lagged previous years, with several counties trailing previous years' growth levels. Despite slowing sales tax collections, significant expenditure savings, growing property tax revenue, and strong investment income revenue underpin strong operating performances.
The potential for a broader economic slowdown in the upcoming year could temper LGs' operating performances. LGs that depend heavily on economically sensitive revenue with limited expenditure flexibility are the most exposed to downward pressure. Federal funding is not a significant portion of revenue for New York LGs, although any unknown impacts of tariffs and rising energy and capital costs, coupled with reductions in grant funding will pressure LGs, especially those with limited operational and revenue-raising flexibility.
S&P Global Ratings maintains ratings on 252 LGs: 221 municipalities and 31 counties. Throughout 2024, overall credit quality has remained stable, with 207 ratings assigned stable outlooks, three with positive outlooks, and 11 exhibiting negative outlooks or being on CreditWatch negative.
During this time, we upgraded several counties and local governments due to strong reserve growth and positive economic momentum. Negative rating actions have primarily stemmed from deteriorating financial positions, often linked to reserve draws. Following the implementation of our new criteria, "Methodology For Rating U.S. Governments," published Sept. 9, 2024, on RatingsDirect, negative rating actions have been associated with LGs with small populations and nominally low reserves. Conversely, positive rating movement has reflected strong reserve and liquidity balances and robust local economies, supported by formalized policies and practices.
Credit Fundamentals
Potential Challenges
- Economic activity is slowing, with statewide sales tax increasing 1.6% in 2024, which is below the growth levels seen in the pre-pandemic years
- Counties maintain strong reserve positions, averaging 24% of operating revenue, while municipalities average 37%
- Generally positive performance, supported by elevated sales tax revenue and federal funding that represented a significant proportion of revenue
- Pension plans are generally well-funded, and pension and other postemployment benefit (OPEB) carrying charges are moderate, although there are some notable exceptions
- Population loss continues statewide, with slightly weaker income metrics compared to nationwide peers
- Uncertainty surrounding the effects of proposed Medicaid cuts on New York State and the resulting downstream impact on counties
- Potential operational imbalances, especially for credits that used a significant portion of federal relief funds as revenue replacement. Economically sensitive revenue, especially mortgage recording and sales taxes, may stagnate or decline, creating bigger budgetary gaps
- Inflationary impact on capital equipment and projects may pressure overall operating budgets, boosting costs and debt issuances
- Statutory inability to prefund OPEBs, which, due to demographic and medical cost trends, could exacerbate operating risks and pressure operations
What We Are Watching In 2025 And Beyond
Economic development is expected to continue, albeit at a slower pace than previous years
New York State's economy remains one of the strongest among states. However the possibility of an economic contraction and any potential negative variances in tax revenue, exacerbated by the state's reliance on capital gains and its exposure to changes in the financial service sector, may weaken the already anticipated slow economic growth that trails peers. Additionally, U.S. federal policy implementation on trade and tariffs, immigration, and the administration of federal funding to states could pressure New York in particular. Despite these possible pressures, the state continues to invest in various economic development projects and incubators throughout the state to ensure future growth. Notably, it continues to focus on investments in the semiconductor and renewable energy space such as Micron in Onondaga County, in addition to various projects all over New York. The governor has proposed another round of grants ($100 million) for its FAST NY shovel ready program to develop sites throughout the state for large employers. Overall, we believe ongoing economic growth will underpin key revenue sources, such as property and sales taxes, for most New York LGs.
Revenue-raising flexibility remains somewhat constrained and pressured by growing expenditures
New York LGs remain constrained by the state's 2% levy increase cap, which can be overridden with a 60% vote of its governing body, which, depending on each municipality, may be politically untenable. That said, given still-somewhat elevated inflation and pressure from collective bargaining agreements, their budgets could be squeezed further. Increases in salaries and benefits and the cessation of American Rescue Plan funding have several local governments exceeding the tax cap and raising taxes north of 4% to ensure fiscal stability. In addition, in the fiscal 2026 budget, the governor proposed keeping AIM funding flat with minimal increases in CHIPS funding, which could stress budgets even more. The governor's executive budget contains increased support, especially to counties, for initiatives around public safety, infrastructure, government consolidation, and antipoverty.
Spotlight On Environmental, Social, And Governance Factors
Several New York LGs have coastal exposure, particularly New York City and municipalities on Long Island, and inland flooding is common, notably in the Southern Tier and Mohawk Valley along flood plains. To address these issues, many LGs are making infrastructure improvements, such as stormwater management upgrades. The state continues to support various efforts for climate change mitigation. Investments in reductions in carbon emissions at state facilities, additional funding for coastal resiliency programs, and increasing grant funding for flood control infrastructure projects underpin the state's ongoing support to mitigate the effects of physical risks. We view these efforts positively but note the long-term risks the environment and location pose.
We consider governance factors for New York LGs neutral, based on offsetting supportive and challenging operating aspects. All New York municipalities and school districts are subject to oversight through the state comptroller's fiscal stress monitoring system, an early warning system that allows officials and taxpayers to be proactive in communities and school districts under financial stress. The 2026 state budget continues investment in the Cyber Risk Remediation Program and builds on efforts and initiatives out of the New York Security Office. We expect this continued investment will help LGs build a baseline defense against this evolving risk. OPEB liabilities continue to pose a challenge to municipalities, and we expect they will rise unless significant changes are made to state statutes.
We view social capital risks as neutral overall. Many LGs are facing demographic pressures while others face affordability problems. In addition, an aging and shrinking workforce, coupled with recruiting difficulties, has led to staffing shortages and human capital challenges. To alleviate these pressures, LGs continue to find ways to retain workers, such as offering incentive pay and higher salaries. We note the governor has launched various housing initiatives throughout the state to grow workforces and improve affordable housing. Furthermore, the budget calls for a new $50 million round of capital grants for "Resilient and Ready," which supports homeowners affected by extreme weather events.
Table 1
New York counties: Medians | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAA | AA+ | AA | AA- | A+ | ||||||||
Median county GCP (%) of the U.S. | 135.80 | 78.20 | 97.20 | 65.90 | 60.30 | |||||||
Median county PCPI (%) of the U.S. | 190.60 | 106.30 | 91.40 | 80.30 | 72.90 | |||||||
Median local HHEBI (%) of the U.S. | 142.60 | 121.20 | 96.55 | 93.80 | 82.00 | |||||||
Median local PCEBI (%) of the U.S. | 154.90 | 115.90 | 98.75 | 90.70 | 78.90 | |||||||
Median three-year performance sverage (%) of revenues | 4.80 | 8.00 | 6.95 | 6.50 | 6.10 | |||||||
Median general fund balance (%) of revenues | 22.30 | 23.30 | 28.00 | 27.00 | 21.70 | |||||||
Median fund balance plus non-general fund (%) of revenues | 22.30 | 23.30 | 28.15 | 27.00 | 21.70 | |||||||
Median debt service (%) of revenues | 6.80 | 4.20 | 5.10 | 2.70 | 2.30 | |||||||
Median net direct debt per capita | 1,737 | 552 | 890 | 657 | 494 | |||||||
Median pension contribution (%) of revenues | 5.80 | 3.40 | 4.00 | 3.80 | 3.40 | |||||||
Median net pension liablity per capita | 398 | 328 | 329 | 456 | 455 | |||||||
GCP--Gross county product. PCPI--Per capita personal income. HHEBI--Household effective buying income. PCEBI--Per capita effective buying income. |
Table 2
New York municipalities: Medians | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAA | AA+ | AA | AA- | A+ | A | A- | BBB+ or Lower | |||||||||||
Median county GCP (%) of the U.S. | 107.40 | 104.80 | 100.40 | 78.20 | 74.25 | 68.50 | 61.55 | 72.70 | ||||||||||
Median county PCPI (%) of the U.S. | 149.90 | 114.60 | 94.30 | 91.50 | 81.70 | 76.10 | 70.90 | 91.10 | ||||||||||
Median local HHEBI (%) of the U.S. | 179.80 | 148.00 | 124.90 | 99.60 | 87.40 | 81.40 | 82.35 | 71.30 | ||||||||||
Median local PCEBI (%) of the U.S. | 181.70 | 142.70 | 126.20 | 93.70 | 87.90 | 78.70 | 72.65 | 77.95 | ||||||||||
Median three-year performance sverage (%) of revenues | 4.00 | 3.90 | 4.70 | 4.50 | 4.80 | 4.05 | 5.95 | 1.05 | ||||||||||
Median general fund balance (%) of revenues | 49.10 | 38.90 | 43.45 | 44.70 | 45.95 | 38.15 | 32.70 | 6.20 | ||||||||||
Median fund balance plus non-general fund (%) of revenues | 54.70 | 40.75 | 45.50 | 44.70 | 41.55 | 38.15 | 39.55 | 6.20 | ||||||||||
Median debt service (%) of revenues | 6.00 | 5.85 | 6.55 | 6.95 | 7.10 | 11.50 | 12.55 | 7.65 | ||||||||||
Median net direct debt per capita | 1,229 | 843 | 658 | 961 | 1,367 | 1,735 | 745 | 1,515 | ||||||||||
Median pension contribution (%) of revenues | 5.80 | 6.40 | 4.85 | 5.40 | 4.80 | 3.50 | 2.00 | 8.25 | ||||||||||
Median net pension liablity per capita | 416 | 99 | 69 | 120 | 115 | 99 | 95 | 712 | ||||||||||
*While we are providing medians for BBB+ and lower ratings, such ratings have additional qualitative factors that are supporting them. GCP--Gross county product. PCPI--Per capita personal income. HHEBI--Household effective buying income. PCEBI--Per capita effective buying income. |
Chart 1
Chart 2
Table 3
New York counties: Rating list | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As of March 24, 2025 | ||||||
This list was prepared by individuals on behalf of the UPSF Group of S&P Global Ratings and is current as of March 24 2025. For the most up to date, accurate, and complete information on any credit ratings referenced in the list, please visit www.standardandpoors.com | ||||||
Entity | Rating | Outlook | ||||
Albany County | AA | Stable | ||||
Allegany County | A+ | Stable | ||||
Broome County | A+ | Stable | ||||
Chautauqua County | A+ | Stable | ||||
Cortland County | A+ | Stable | ||||
Dutchess County | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Erie County | AA | Stable | ||||
Essex County | AA | Stable | ||||
Franklin County* | A | Stable | ||||
Genesee County | AA- | Stable | ||||
Lewis County | A+ | Stable | ||||
Madison County | AA- | Stable | ||||
Monroe County | AA | Stable | ||||
Montgomery County | A+ | Stable | ||||
Nassau County | AA | Stable | ||||
Oneida County | AA- | Stable | ||||
Onondaga County | AA | Positive | ||||
Orange County | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Rensselaer County | AA | Stable | ||||
Rockland County | AA | Stable | ||||
Saratoga County | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Schoharie County | AA- | Stable | ||||
Schuyler County | A+ | Stable | ||||
Seneca County | AA- | Stable | ||||
St Lawrence County | A+ | Stable | ||||
Suffolk County | AA- | Stable | ||||
Sullivan County | AA | Stable | ||||
Ulster County | AA | Stable | ||||
Warren County | AA | Stable | ||||
Wayne County | AA- | Stable | ||||
Westchester County | AAA | Stable | ||||
*Reflects the rating for Franklin County Solid Waste Management Authority--an appropriation rating for the county. |
Table 4
New York municipalities: Rating list | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As of March 24, 2025 | ||||||
This list was prepared by individuals on behalf of the UPSF Group of S&P Global Ratings and is current as of March 24 2025. For the most up to date, accurate, and complete information on any credit ratings referenced in the list, please visit www.standardandpoors.com | ||||||
Entity | Rating | Outlook | ||||
Adams Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Airmont Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Albany | A+ | Stable | ||||
Albion Town | A- | Stable | ||||
Alexander Twn | A | Stable | ||||
Alexandria Bay Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Altamont Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Amityville Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Amsterdam Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Arcade Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Arcadia Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Atlantic Beach Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Avon Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Babylon Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Babylon Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Bath Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Bedford Town | AAA | Stable | ||||
Beekmantown | AA- | Stable | ||||
Bellmont Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Bellport Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Benton Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Bergen Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Bethlehem Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Bloomfield Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Boonville Village | A | Stable | ||||
Brewster Village | BBB+ | Positive | ||||
Briarcliff Manor Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Brightwaters Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Brockport Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Brookhaven Town | AAA | Stable | ||||
Brunswick | AA | Stable | ||||
Buchanan Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Buffalo | A+ | Stable | ||||
Canandaigua | AA- | Stable | ||||
Cattaraugus Village | A | Stable | ||||
Chenango Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Cicero Town | AA | Stable | ||||
City of Hudson | A+ | Stable | ||||
City of Poughkeepsie | BBB+ | Positive | ||||
Clarendon | A | Stable | ||||
Clarkstown Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Clayton Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Clinton Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Clinton Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Cohoes | AA- | Stable | ||||
Collins Twn | AA- | Stable | ||||
Colonie Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Concord | AA- | Stable | ||||
Corinth Village | A | Stable | ||||
Corning Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Cortland | A | Negative | ||||
Coxsackie | A | Stable | ||||
Depew Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Dewitt Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Dryden Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
East Aurora Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
East Bloomfield Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
East Rochester Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
East Rockaway Village | AA | Watch Neg | ||||
Elmira | A- | Positive | ||||
Endicott Village | A | Stable | ||||
Enfield Town | A | Stable | ||||
Esopus | AA- | Stable | ||||
Evans | A+ | Stable | ||||
Fairport Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Farmingdale Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Fayetteville Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Fleming | AA- | Stable | ||||
Frankfort Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Frankfort Village | A | Stable | ||||
Fulton | BBB+ | Watch Neg | ||||
Geneseo Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Geneva | AA- | Stable | ||||
Glens Falls | A+ | Stable | ||||
Goshen Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Goshen Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Gouverneur Village | A | Stable | ||||
Greece Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Greenburgh Town | AAA | Stable | ||||
Greene Village | A | Stable | ||||
Greenport Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Guilford Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Halfmoon | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Hamlin Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Hannibal Town | A- | Stable | ||||
Harriman Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Hastings Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Hempstead Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Hempstead Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Highland Falls Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Huntington Town | AAA | Stable | ||||
Islip | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Jamestown | A- | Stable | ||||
Jerusalem (Town of) | AA- | Stable | ||||
Kendall | A | Stable | ||||
Kingston | AA- | Stable | ||||
Kirkwood Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Kiryas Joel Village | A- | Stable | ||||
Lafayette Town | AA- | Watch Neg | ||||
Lake George Village | AA | Stable | ||||
LeRay Town | A | Stable | ||||
Leroy Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Lewisboro Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Lewiston Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Lima Vill | A+ | Stable | ||||
Lindenhurst Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Lynbrook Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Lyndonville Village | A | Stable | ||||
Lysander Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Malverne Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Mamaroneck Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Manorhaven Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Marcellus Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Marcellus Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Marilla Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Medina Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Mendon Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
New Hartford Town | AA- | Watch Neg | ||||
New Hartford Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
New Hyde Park Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
New York City | AA | Stable | ||||
Newark Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Niagara Falls | BBB+ | Stable | ||||
Niskayuna | AA+ | Stable | ||||
North Elba Town | AA | Stable | ||||
North Greenbush Town | AA | Stable | ||||
North Salem Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Nunda Twn | A+ | Stable | ||||
Nyack Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
Oakfield Town | A- | Stable | ||||
Ocean Beach Village | AAA | Stable | ||||
Old Brookvill Village | AAA | Stable | ||||
Oneida | AA- | Stable | ||||
Oneonta | AA- | Stable | ||||
Oneonta Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Orchard Park Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Owasco Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Owego Town | AA- | Watch Neg | ||||
Oyster Bay Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Palmyra Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Patchogue Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Pavilion Twn | AA- | Stable | ||||
Pawling | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Pelham Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Penn Yan Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Perinton Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Perry Village | A | Stable | ||||
Peru Town | A+ | Stable | ||||
Piermont | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Plandome Village | AAA | Stable | ||||
Potsdam Village | A | Watch Neg | ||||
Princetown | AA- | Stable | ||||
Ramapo Town | AA- | Negative | ||||
Red Hook Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Ridgeway Town | A- | Stable | ||||
Rochester | AA- | Stable | ||||
Rockville Centre | AAA | Stable | ||||
Rome | A+ | Stable | ||||
Sackets Harbor Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Saltaire Village | AAA | Stable | ||||
Santa Clara | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Saratoga Springs | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Saratoga Town | AA+ | Watch Neg | ||||
Saugerties Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Schenectady | A+ | Stable | ||||
Schodack Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Scottsville Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Sea Cliff Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Seneca Falls Town | A+ | Watch Neg | ||||
Shawangunk Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Shoreham Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Silver Springs | A- | Stable | ||||
Skaneateles Village | AA | Stable | ||||
South Blooming Grove Village | AA- | Stable | ||||
South Bristol Twn | AA | Stable | ||||
Springville Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Sweden Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Syracuse | A+ | Stable | ||||
Tonawanda | AA- | Stable | ||||
Town of LeRoy | A+ | Stable | ||||
Town of Lenox | A+ | Stable | ||||
Town of Marion | A+ | Stable | ||||
Town of Monroe | AA | Stable | ||||
Town of Oswego | A | Stable | ||||
Town of Phelps | A+ | Stable | ||||
Town of Riga | AA | Stable | ||||
Town of Southampton | AAA | Stable | ||||
Town of Wappinger | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Town of Windsor | A+ | Stable | ||||
Town of York | A+ | Stable | ||||
Troy | A+ | Stable | ||||
Tuckahoe Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Tupper Lake Village | A | Stable | ||||
Tuxedo Park Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Ulster Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Upper Brookville | AAA | Stable | ||||
Upper Nyack Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Utica | A | Stable | ||||
Van Buren Town | AA- | Stable | ||||
Vestal | AA- | Stable | ||||
Village of Adams | A | Stable | ||||
Village of Laurel Hollow | AAA | Stable | ||||
Village of Philadelphia | A- | Stable | ||||
Village of Southampton | AAA | Stable | ||||
Village of Woodridge | A+ | Stable | ||||
Voorheesville Village | AA | Stable | ||||
Walton Village | A | Stable | ||||
Waterford Vill | A | Stable | ||||
Watervliet | A+ | Stable | ||||
Watkins Glen Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Waverly Village | A | Stable | ||||
Wellsville Village | A+ | Stable | ||||
Westbury Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Whitehall Village | A | Negative | ||||
Williamson Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Woodbury Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Woodbury Village | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Woodstock Town | AA | Stable | ||||
Yates (Town of) (Orleans County) | A- | Stable | ||||
Yonkers | A+ | Stable |
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analyst: | Lauren Freire, New York + 1 (212) 438 7854; lauren.freire@spglobal.com |
Secondary Contact: | Christian Richards, Washington D.C. + 1 (617) 530 8325; christian.richards@spglobal.com |
Research Contributors: | Subria Bello, New York; subria.bello@spglobal.com |
Bhagyesh Supekar, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, 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.