Global Header | Moody's
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 MIG 1 (MSDE) ENHANCED RATING TO DULUTH ISD NO. 709'S (MN) $19.5 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX AND AID ANTICIPATION CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 2011A

14 Mar 2011

AFFIRMS UNDERLYING Aa3 RATING ON OUTSTANDING GO DEBT AND FULL TERM COP DEBT; AND UNDERLYING A1 RATING ON OUTSTANDING COP DEBT SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION

Primary & Secondary Education
MN

Moody's Rating

ISSUE

RATING

Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2011A

MIG 1

  Sale Amount

$19,450,000

  Expected Sale Date

03/15/11

  Rating Description

General Obligation Unlimited Tax (MSDE)

 

Opinion

NEW YORK, Mar 14, 2011 -- Moody's Investors Service has assigned a MIG 1 enhanced rating (MSDE) to Duluth Independent School District No. 709's (MN) $19.5 million General Obligation Tax and Aid Anticipation Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2011A. Concurrently, Moody's has affirmed the Aa3 underlying rating on the district's outstanding general obligation debt and full term certificates of participation (COPs); and affirmed the A1 rating on the district's COPs that are subject to annual appropriation.

STRENGTHS

-Enhancement provided by the State of Minnesota (Aa1/stable)

-Regional economic center for Northeastern Minnesota and benefits from institutional stability in health care and higher education sectors

WEAKNESSES

-Declining enrollment

-Continued annual General Fund operating deficits

-High debt burden

SUMMARY RATINGS RATIONALE

The certificates are secured ultimately secured by the district's general obligation unlimited tax pledge though debt service is expected to be paid from anticipated tax and state aid revenues. Proceeds of the current certificates will be used to meet current expenses of the district and cover a cash flow deficit in anticipation of state aids to be received as well as taxes levied for 2011.

The enhanced rating is due to the additional security provided by the State of Minnesota's School District Credit Enhancement Program (MSDE). Under the MSDE loan program, established and designed by the State of Minnesota, the bonds are secured by the state's pledge of an unlimited appropriation from its General Fund (the state's general obligation debt is rated Aa1 with a stable outlook) should the district be unable to meet debt service requirements. The appropriation mechanism allows for continuing unlimited advances from the state's General Fund to avert default for qualified school districts. District repayment is either from state aid withholding or a required special school district levy outside normal levy limits. Key program components also include third-party notification of pending deficiency. Under Minnesota statutes, if the district believes it is unable to make a timely debt service payment, it must notify the Department of Education at least 15 working days prior to the due date. The Commissioner, after consultation with the district and the paying agent, and the verification of information, will notify the Commissioner of Finance who issues a warrant and authorization for direct payment to the paying agent. Should a district fail to notify the state of an impending non-payment of debt covered by the program, the paying agent will undertake notification. The agent is to notify the State directly, three days prior to the payment date of the needed amounts. State funds equal to the request are then transferred directly to the paying agent. If the State makes a payment on behalf of a district, the district must submit a plan to the Commissioner of Education specifying the steps the district intends to take to resolve current and future funding problems.

The district's underlying Aa3 general obligation rating reflects the location in Duluth (GO rated Aa2/stable outlook), a regional economic center in northeastern Minnesota that is home to both a significant Great Lakes port and the second largest campus of the University of Minnesota; declining enrollment; satisfactory, though steadily narrowing, General Fund reserves; and high debt levels that are driven by the district's sizeable master facilities plan. The district's Series 2008B, 2009A, 2010B and 2010C full-term COPs are rated on parity as its general obligation rating as the rental payments are funded from a separate, statutorily authorized lease levy and are not subject to annual appropriation. The district's A1 rating on the Series 2009B, 2010A, and 2010D COPs are rated one-notch below the district's underlying general obligation rating due to the risk of annual non-appropriation. Post sale, the district will have $86.4 million of outstanding general obligation debt including the current issue, $185.5 million full-term certificates of participation, and $37 million of certificates of participation subject to annual appropriation.

DETAILED CREDIT DISCUSSION

NOTE HOLDER SECURITY AND MIG 1 RATING DERIVED FROM STATE ENHANCEMENT DESPITE MARKET ACCESS RISK

The need to issue aid anticipation certificates for Minnesota school districts is due to the timing discrepancy between the periodic receipt of state aid revenues and the ongoing operating expenditures of the participating district, coupled with the relatively narrow cash positions of the participating district. Minnesota school districts generally rely on state aid for a substantial portion of operating revenues. Certificates are issued by a district in anticipation of state aid for the upcoming fiscal year. The certificates provide liquidity until such collections are received. Mitigating the risk of non-repayment of a loan by a district, the maximum allowable amount each district may borrow under the program equals the lesser of (1) 75% of the certified state aid to be received by the district in the current fiscal year, or (2) the lowest projected cash balance (or greatest deficit balance) of a district for the current fiscal year, plus 5% of the district's previous year's cash expenditures. The district reserves funds from state aid payments to repay the certificates, and those funds are transferred to the paying agent (Bond Trust Services Corporation) three days prior to the maturity of the certificates.

The current issuance of $19.5 million is a manageable 16.2% of anticipated receipts. The first payment is due on September 29, 2011. Historically, the district has received significant state aid and property tax receipts in September. However, due to the delay in state aid, the district is expecting a large payment in October, after the date of the first note repayment of $10.96 million. As state aid is not expected until October, the district plans to issue additional notes to pay debt service in September, therefore be exposed to market access risk. Upon receipt of the October state aid, the district will be in a positive cash position, with a cash balance of $4.3 million after repayment of notes, or an adequate 3.7% of anticipated receipts. The second note repayment is due on March 29, 2012 and is expected to be paid with February property tax receipts. Market access risk is somewhat mitigated by the fact the district will create a debt service fund where state aid and property tax receipts will be deposited 28 days prior to each maturity date. In addition, the certificates are binding general obligations of the district.

DULUTH SERVES AS A REGIONAL ECONOMIC HUB IN NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA; ENROLLMENT DECLINES CONTINUE

Located on the shore of Lake Superior, 150 miles north of the Twin Cities metropolitan area along Interstate-35, the district serves the City of Duluth and portions of the surrounding areas outside the city limits in St. Louis County (GO rated Aa2). Despite recent declines in valuations, we expect the regional economy will remain relatively healthy, given the city's role as an education, health care, and retail hub for Northeastern Minnesota. Regional iron ore mining and shipping activity at the Port of Duluth on Lake Superior are significant components of the local economy. Although both industries have suffered in the current economic recession, officials report demand for iron ore have been increasing and as a result mining output and shipping activity have begun to stabilize. The presence of three institutions of higher education, including the second-largest campus of the University of Minnesota (revenue rated Aa1/stable outlook), provide considerable economic stability to counteract the vulnerability of the city's industrial sector. The health care industry also supports Duluth's economy, as the city's top employers include St. Mary's Clinic, St. Luke's Hospital, and Benedictine Health System. The district's tax base is a sizeable $6.7 billion. Reflective of the national economy, the district's tax base is declined by 5.6% in 2009.

Duluth's student population of 16,500 (or 19% of the 2000 census population) accounts in part for the city's below average socioeconomic indices. Per capita income, median family income, and median home values are all below state and national medians and have declined relative to those medians over the past thirty years (despite slight increases between 1990 and 2000). The city's population has continued to decline precipitously, with the 2009 estimated population of 85,220 representing a 16% decline from the 1970 census count. Although the county's December 2010 unemployment rate of 7.5% was higher than the state's of 6.8% but below that of the nation (9.1%) for the same time period.

Reflecting the general demographic pressures of Northeastern Minnesota and the general disruptions that have come with the district's significant master facilities plan, district enrollment has been steadily declining. Enrollment, currently 8,844 students has been continuously declining at an average annual rate of -3.2% over the past five years. An increasing negative margin with open enrolled students has added to the declines, and district officials believe it's due the general disruptions caused by its master facilities plan. Officials expect continued decreases, though at a somewhat slower pace for the next several years, after which time, enrollment levels should stabilize.

SATISFACTORY, THOUGH STEADILY DECLINING, GENERAL FUND RESERVES

Despite continued declines in reserves over the past several years we believe the district's financial operations will remain satisfactory in the near term. For the past five years, the district has steadily drawn down its General Fund reserves from $29.7 million (30% of revenues) at the close of fiscal 2004 to $14.7 million, or narrower but still satisfactory 14.6% of revenues in fiscal 2010. Declines in reserves were mostly due to the steady decreases in enrollment that have led to stagnant state revenues not keeping pace with increasing expenditures. In addition, expenditures have been outpacing revenues due to ongoing costs related to its extensive master facilities plan.

While the total General Fund balance has continued to decline, the unreserved and undesignated balance has remained above the district's target balance of $7 million. At the close of fiscal 2003 the General Fund's unreserved, undesignated balance was $7.3 million; at the close of fiscal 2010 it was $7.6 million. Again for fiscal 2011 officials are expecting a decline in the overall fund balance of $1 million to $1.5 million but that the unreserved, undesignated balance will remain at $7 million. The General Fund balance's declining trend is expected to stabilize by fiscal 2013, when operational efficiencies are expected to be generated from the district's master facilities plan and savings should be realized. District policy calls for the maintenance of a minimum undesignated General Fund balance of 10% of annual budgeted expenditures. In November 2008, district voters approved the five year renewal of a $365 per pupil excess operating levy but did not approve the district's request for an increase in the per pupil amount. While the district's fund balance remains nominally sufficient, should expenditures continue to outpace revenues and declines in reserves continue, the district's financial flexibility could be pressured thus affecting credit quality.

State aid, which is largely based on enrollment, is the district's primary source of revenue, comprising 79% of General Fund revenues in fiscal 2009. Less than 9% of the district's General Fund revenues are derived from property taxes. Budget challenges with the State of Minnesota has led to delays in state aid payments to Minnesota school districts. While the state has not reduced the per pupil funding amount, the state has announced several forms of payment delays to school districts in order to alleviate the state's budget and cash flow pressures. Prior to fiscal 2010, school districts typically received 90% of their annual state aid in the current fiscal year, with the remaining 10% received in the subsequent fiscal year. Effective fiscal 2010, this proportion shifted from 90%/10% to 73%/27%. There was a subsequent shift of 70%/30% for fiscal 2011. Approximately $10 million of the district's scheduled March and April payments will be delayed, and this current issuance will help with cash flow needs.

HIGH DEBT LEVELS DRIVEN BY SIZEABLE MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

For the past several years, the district has embarked on a master facilities planning initiative to achieve greater operational savings. As envisioned, the plan would address the district's building and infrastructure needs for the next several decades. The plan includes the closing and consolidation of some buildings, renovation of others, and construction of new buildings. In total, project costs were estimated to be nearly $300 million and debt was issued from 2008 through 2010. Favorably, the master facilities plan should result in cost efficiencies derived from a consolidated system of fewer facilities and new and updated buildings, which would also likely translate to a favorable impact on the district's balance sheet. Though the aggregate amount borrowed is substantial, we do not expect an impact to credit quality given the extensive nature of the master facilities plan, including the life of the buildings and assets financed, and the strong position it puts the district in regards to the condition of its facilities for the near future as principal on the debt will be paid down. All of the district's debt is in fixed rate mode, and the district is not a party to any interest rate swap agreements.

What could change the rating up:

-Material continued improvement of operations and maintenance of structural balance.

-Increasing enrollment leading to stabilized revenue streams.

What could change the rating down:

-Significant state aid reductions placing further stress on already pressured revenues.

-Continued operating deficits and deterioration of General Fund reserves.

KEY STATISTICS

2009 Full value: $6.7 billion

2000 Census population: 94,803 (2.2% increase since 1990 Census)

2011 Enrollment: 8,844 (3.2% average annual decrease since 2007)

2009 Full value per capita: $72,320

1999 Median family income, a % of state: 83.9% (95.4% of US)

1999 Per capita income, as a % of state: 82.4% (88.6% of US)

St. Louis County unemployment rate (December 2010): 7.5% (MN at 6.8%, US at 9.1%)

Fiscal 2010 General Fund balance: $14.7 million (14.6% of revenues)

Fiscal 2010 Undesignated General Fund balance: $7.6 million (7.6% of revenues)

Post-sale general obligation debt: $86.4 million

Post-sale full-term certificates of participation debt outstanding: $185.5 million

Post-sale certificates of participation, subject to annual appropriation: $37 million

Overall debt burden: 8.0% (6.2% direct)

Payout of principal (10 years): 48.5%

PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGY

The principal methodology used in this rating was Short-Term Cash Flow Notes published in May 2007.

REGULATORY DISCLOSURES

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 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

Soo Yun Chun
Analyst
Public Finance Group
Moody's Investors Service

Rachel Cortez
Backup Analyst
Public Finance Group
Moody's Investors Service

Henrietta Chang
Senior Credit Officer
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 MIG 1 (MSDE) ENHANCED RATING TO DULUTH ISD NO. 709'S (MN) $19.5 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX AND AID ANTICIPATION CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 2011A
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.

​​​​
Global Footer | Moody's