Moodys.com
Close
Please Note
We brought you to this page based on your search query. If this isn't what you are looking for, you can continue to Search Results for ""
The maximum number of items you can export is 3,000. Please reduce your list by using the filtering tool to the left.
Close
Close
Email Research
Recipient email addresses will not be used in mailing lists or redistributed.
Recipient's
Email

Use semicolon to separate each address, limit to 20 addresses.
Enter the
characters you see
Close
Email Research
Thank you for your interest in sharing Moody's Research. You have reached the daily limit of Research email sharings.
Close
Thank you!
You have successfully sent the research.
Please note: some research requires a paid subscription in order to access.
New Issue:

MOODY'S ASSIGNS A1 RATING TO SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY'S $165 MILLION REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2010; OUTLOOK IS STABLE

03 Nov 2010

A1 APPLIES TO $173.5 MILLION OF RATED DEBT, INCLUDING CURRENT ISSUE

Ports
SC

Moody's Rating

ISSUE

RATING

Revenue Bonds, Series 2010

A1

  Sale Amount

$165,000,000

  Expected Sale Date

11/10/10

  Rating Description

Revenue Bonds

 

Opinion

NEW YORK, Nov 3, 2010 -- Moody's Investors Service has assigned an A1 rating to the South Carolina State Ports Authority's approximately $165 million Revenue Bonds, Series 2010. Moody's has also affirmed the A1 rating on outstanding Series 1998 port revenue bonds. The outlook is stable. $85.6 million of the Series 1998 Bonds have been defeased and called for redemption leaving $8.5 million of the Series 1998 Bonds outstanding representing the 2011 and 2012 maturities of this series.

USE OF PROCEEDS: Proceeds will reimburse the port for $86 million of capital expenditures and finance approximately $77.8 million of new projects including a new cruise terminal, upgrades to the Columbus Street Terminal, and a new terminal operating system. Preliminary work has begun on the cruise terminal and contracts have been awarded for the Columbus Street Terminal and terminal operating system.

LEGAL SECURITY: The Series 2010 bonds will be issued under a revised and restated bond indenture. Bonds will be secured by net revenues generated at port facilities. Additional security features include a cash-funded debt service reserve fund sized at 50% of maximum annual debt service, a rate covenant to provide 120% of debt service and 100% of operating expenditures and all required reserve deposits, and an additional bonds test requiring the prior fiscal year or five projected fiscal years maintain 1.20x debt service coverage. The resolution also establishes a Depreciation Fund and a Capital Improvement Fund, but does not require funding. Surpluses can be used to pay debt service. Revisions in the revised and restated indenture do not have a significant credit impact, however the additional bonds test now requires either a historic or prospective test rather than both.

INTEREST RATE DERIVATIVES: The authority is party to three interest rate swap agreements. In December 2005, the authority entered into a swap agreement for a $26.33 million notional with counterparty Wachovia Bank N.A. and a swap agreement for a $61.44 million notional with counterparty Goldman Sachs Capital Markets. The two swaps were entered into as a forward refunding of the fixed-rate Series 1998 bonds, with effective dates of July 1, 2008. The authority chose not to refund the Series 1998 bonds in 2008 and due to high termination costs, entered into a third swap agreement to effectively balance the 2005 swaps. In both of the 2005 swap agreements, the authority pays a fixed rate of 3.67% and receives a variable rate of 70% of one-month LIBOR. The 2008 swap agreement is for a notional amount of $87.8 million with Goldman Sachs Capital Markets. Under the agreement, the authority receives a fixed rate of 3.5% and pays SIFMA, introducing basis risk. The combined mark-to-market of the three swap agreements was negative $4.6 million as of September 30, 2010. Additional termination events for the two Goldman swaps include a downgrade of either party's rating to below Baa2 by Moody's or the equivalent by S&P. Additional termination events for the Wachovia swap include a downgrade of either party's rating to below Baa3 by Moody's or the equivalent by S&P. Collateral posting requirements factor a threshold of $10 million at the current A1 rating level.

RATINGS RATIONALE

STRENGTHS:

* Distinct competitive advantages including naturally deep water ports, solid labor relations and above-average productivity, a short steam time from sea buoy, and available land for future development. Due to the port's deep harbors, the authority will be well-positioned after the Panama Canal expansion is completed.

* Well-balanced trade and diversified commodities and trade partners

* Very favorable financial performance as evidenced by a consistent record of strong debt service coverage, ability to generate excess cash to fund capital investments, and maintenance of high levels of liquidity. Strong finances are protected by sound financial management and satisfactory coverage and liquidity targets.

* Low debt levels provide significant financial flexibility

CHALLENGES:

* Relatively weaker debt service reserve fund, sized at 50% of maximum annual debt service

* A recent trend of declining container and cargo levels, exacerbated by the economic downturn and the uncertain pace of trade recovery

* Highly competitive environment with several large ports nearby competing for discretionary cargo; the port's market position may be challenged in the medium term given declining cargo and continued strength at neighboring ports. The authority's competitive challenges include a relatively small local population base, and less rail access and distribution center presence compared to competitors.

* Current borrowing significantly increases debt position and annual debt service requirements, although projections show satisfactory debt service coverage. Large long-term capital program could further increase the port's debt position over the next 12 years, however the projects are largely discretionary and will be undertaken in line with future cargo growth

MARKET POSITION / COMPETITIVE STRATEGY: MULTI-YEAR CARGO DECLINES PARTIALLY BALANCED BY DISTINCT COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ON SOUTHEAST U.S. COAST

The South Carolina Ports Authority includes the Port of Charleston, the largest facility, and the Port of Georgetown. The authority is a port operator and runs its cranes and landside facilities at its two locations. The Port of Charleston is one of the busiest container ports along the Southeast and Gulf coasts, and includes one cruise terminal, two breakbulk terminals, and three container terminals encompassing 1,045 acres with 13 berths and 20 post-panamax cranes. Competitive advantages include favorable labor relations, above-average productivity, the 45 foot harbor depth, dual rail service, and a short steam time from the sea buoy. The authority faces competition from nearby Port of Savannah and Virginia Port Authority (rated Aa3/Negative outlook), and other East Coast ports for its discretionary cargo, which is more susceptible to competition, particularly in light of Savannah's trade with historically high-growth Asian countries and strong rail connectivity. Only 45% of Charleston's cargo tonnage and one-third of containers are non-discretionary, or South Carolina-based, however nearly 75% of volumes stay within a five-state region.

In the first quarter, the authority's FY2011 container volumes have increased 18% over the prior year, reversing a four-year trend of declines. The authority's container volumes decreased 35% from FY2006 to FY2010, moving the port from the second busiest on the East Coast in 2004 to the fifth busiest in 2009. The cargo declines were due to reduced service from shipping line Maersk, competition from Port of Savannah, and most-recently, the global contraction in trade. FY2010 containers, which contributed 82% of operating revenues, decreased 6.6% to 1.28 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) from FY2009 levels. Breakbulk cargo, which contributed 13% of FY2010 operating revenues, decreased 10% to 750,000 short tons. In FY2011 year-to-date, breakbulk cargo continues to decline, although at a moderated rate of 1.3%. Favorably, the authority's long-term contract with Maersk (13% of FY2010 operating revenues) has been recently renegotiated through 2015, however the new contract will not include minimum guaranteed cargo levels going forward. Minimum guaranteed revenues will decline from 48% of FY2010 operating revenues to approximately 22% in FY2011. Despite the recent improvement in container movement, Moody's believes that strong competition from other East Coast ports and the uncertain pace of economic recovery will result in a protracted recovery for the port. However the port's market position may be supported in the medium to long term by new business growth, continued regional expansion, and a competitive advantage after the Panama Canal expansion in 2014 due to the 45' harbor depth.

The port has well-balanced trade (46% exports / 54% imports) and is well-diversified in commodities and trade partners. Top commodities handled at Charleston include paper and paperboard (7%), auto parts (5.5%), furniture (4.5%), and fabrics (3.7%). Major trading partners are centered in North Europe (33% of TEUs), and increasingly include Northeast Asia (22%), India and other Asian countries (14%) and South America (11%). The port serves all of the top twenty world container lines, including New World Alliance (15% of FY2010 operating revenues) and Maersk (13%). Charleston handles BMW imports into 22 states in the south and central U.S. and the overwhelming majority of BMW exports from the United States, due to its proximity to BMW's manufacturing center in Greer, South Carolina.

The City of Charleston (general obligation bonds rated Aa2) has a relatively small population base, compared to the top three container ports in the U.S. The presence of a large local base tends to stimulate hub port operations, as well as the development of intermodal connections, and is generally viewed as an important characteristic of a major load center port. In the case of Charleston, the absence of a large population base is somewhat offset by the port's proximity to Atlanta (metropolitan area population of approximately 3 million people), which is an important regional transportation center. Approximately 45% of Charleston's cargo tonnage and one-third of containers are non-discretionary, or South Carolina-based. The remaining share is more susceptible to competition from other ports.

FINANCIAL POSITION AND PERFORMANCE: FAVORABLE FINANCES EXPECTED TO CONTINUE DESPITE ADDITIONAL DEBT

The authority's debt service coverage (by Moody's-calculated net revenues) has increased over the past five years to 10.20x in FY2008 from 4.80x in FY2004 due to strong revenue growth and minimal debt service requirements. Despite the multi-year cargo declines, operating revenues remained strong in FY2007 and FY2008 due to shortfall payments made by shipping lines. FY2010 debt service coverage declined to 4.77x from 6.33x in FY2009. On a bond ordinance basis, FY2010 debt service coverage is very similar at 4.89x. Given the high coverage levels, the port had increased its cash reserves to a peak of $192 million in FY2008 (855 days cash on hand) but this has declined slightly to $164 million (810 days) in FY2010 as the port continues to invest in capital projects and pay down outstanding debt. Based on operations to date, FY2011 debt service coverage is projected to increase to 5.48x and liquidity will decrease but remain solid at 681 days ($144 million). The authority's strong liquidity position somewhat balances the below-average size of the debt service reserve fund that is cash-funded at 50% of maximum annual debt service.

The authority has run financial and debt projections based on various cargo level sensitivities - in the lowest scenario, debt service coverage remains above the targeted 2.5x and unrestricted reserves remain above $50 million, excluding a $16 million operating reserve. Projections factor an additional $125 million of borrowing in 2014 and $35 million in 2016. While the projections reflect a satisfactory financial position, the current offering is reducing the port's financial flexibility by increasing annual debt service requirements to approximately $13.5 million from $9 million through 2025 and extending final maturity to 2040 from 2026. The port's above-average financial flexibility was a key credit strength during the recent years of high cargo declines, and at reduced levels will provide less protection in the event of further cargo volatility. Moody's expects the authority will maintain stable financial performance in light of recent cargo growth, the renegotiated contract with Maersk, and a demonstrated history of sound financial management.

CAPITAL PROGRAM: CURRENT DEBT LEVEL IS AVERAGE; MAJOR CAPITAL EXPANSION WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS DEMAND DICTATES

The authority's long-term capital plan includes $1.3 billion of projects over the next ten years, the bulk of which will construct additional container facilities on the 320-acre former Charleston Navy Base. The timing of the project will be driven by the pace of future cargo growth, however the authority expects to fund $272 million of critical path projects over the next five years to prepare the site for future development. In addition, the ten-year capital program includes $239 million for new equipment at existing terminals, $355.5 million to renovate and expand existing facilities and $22.5 million to deepen the harbor. The plan also includes the port's $1 million annual contribution until 2029 to the state for replacement of the Cooper River bridge, which now allows taller and wider clearance across the main shipping channel. Future borrowing is estimated at $60 million in 2011 and $30 million in 2013.

With the net impact of the current offering and the cash defeasance of $85.9 million of Series 1998 bonds, the port's debt ratio will remain below-average but increase to 21.8% of net fixed assets and working capital from a low 12.3%. The authority has flexible borrowing plans that will be driven by the pace of cargo growth. Under the lowest growth scenario, future borrowing will include $125 million in 2014 and $35 million in 2016.

Outlook

The outlook for the port authority is stable based on our expectation that the recent cargo declines are stabilizing, strong financial management and policies will provide stable financial performance, and that the port can comfortably absorb the increased debt position. The authority will continue to be challenged by a highly competitive environment and uncertainty regarding the pace of economic recovery.

What would change the rating - UP

The authority is well-positioned in its current rating category.

What would change the rating - DOWN

Continued deterioration of cargo levels resulting from a renewed or prolonged economic downturn, customer departures or loss of market position, and debt service coverage and liquidity levels that fall below the authority's policies of 2.5x and $65 million (unrestricted plus operating reserve).

KEY INDICATORS:

Type of Port: Operator

TEUs, FY2009: 1.37 million

TEUs, FY2010: 1.28 million

TEUs, FY2009-FY2010: -6.6%

TEUs, FY2006-2010 CAGR: -8.3%

Cargo tons, FY2010: 750,000 short tons (bulk and breakbulk)

Cargo tons, FY2009-FY2010: -10.2%

Cargo tons, FY2006-2010 CAGR: -17.6%

% Imports / Exports, 2009: 54% / 46%

Channel depth, 2010: 45 ft

Debt service coverage, FY2010: 4.77x (by Moody's calculated net revenues)

Debt service coverage, FY2011 projected: 5.48x

Debt service coverage, FY2006-2010 average: 8.00x

Proforma Debt Ratio: 21.8%

Days Cash on hand, FY2010: 810

Days Cash on hand, FY2011projected: 681

RATED DEBT (after the current offering):

Series 1998 Revenue Bonds, $8.5 million

Series 2010 Revenue Bonds, approximately $165 million

ISSUER CONTACT:

Peter Hughes, Chief Financial Officer, phone: 843-577-8140

REGULATORY DISCLOSURES

The principal methodology used in rating South Carolina State Ports Authority was Moody's Rating Methodology for U.S. Ports rating methodology published in February 2005. Other methodologies and factors that may have been considered in the process of rating this issuer can also be found on Moody's website.

Information sources used to prepare the credit rating are the following: parties involved in the ratings, parties not involved in the ratings, public information, confidential and proprietary Moody's Investors Service's information and confidential and proprietary Moody's Analytics' information.

Moody's Investors Service considers the quality of information available on the credit satisfactory for the purposes of assigning a credit rating.

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.

Please see ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on Moodys.com for the last rating action and the rating history.

The date on which some Credit Ratings were first released goes back to a time before Moody's Investors Service's Credit Ratings were fully digitized and accurate data may not be available. Consequently, Moody's Investors Service provides a date that it believes is the most reliable and accurate based on the information that is available to it. Please see the ratings disclosure page on our website www.moodys.com for further information.

Please see the Credit Policy page on Moodys.com for the methodologies used in determining ratings, further information on the meaning of each rating category and the definition of default and recovery.

Analysts

Baye B. Larsen
Analyst
Public Finance Group
Moody's Investors Service

Kristina Alagar Cordero
Backup Analyst
Public Finance Group
Moody's Investors Service

Contacts

Journalists: (212) 553-0376
Research Clients: (212) 553-1653


Moody's Investors Service
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
USA

MOODY'S ASSIGNS A1 RATING TO SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY'S $165 MILLION REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2010; OUTLOOK IS STABLE
No Related Data.
© 2019 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. AND ITS RATINGS AFFILIATES (“MIS”) ARE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND 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 OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE MOODY’S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S RATINGS. 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 AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN 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.

CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK.

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 CREDIT RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., 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 Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $2,700,000. 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 “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”

Additional terms 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 investors.

Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.

MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY125,000 to approximately JPY250,000,000.

MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.

​​​​​​
Moodys.com