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.
Already a customer?
LOG IN
Don't want to see this again?
REGISTER
OR
Accept our Terms of Use to continue to Moodys.com:

PLEASE READ AND SCROLL DOWN!

By clicking “I AGREE” [at the end of this document], you indicate that you understand and intend these terms and conditions to be the legal equivalent of a signed, written contract and equally binding, and that you accept such terms and conditions as a condition of viewing any and all Moody’s inform​ation that becomes accessible to you [after clicking “I AGREE”] (the “Information”).   References herein to “Moody’s” include Moody’s Corporation, Inc. and each of its subsidiaries and affiliates.

Terms of One-Time Website Use

1.            Unless you have entered into an express written contract with Moody’s to the contrary, you agree that you have no right to use the Information in a commercial or public setting and no right to copy it, save it, print it, sell it, or publish or distribute any portion of it in any form.               

2.            You acknowledge and agree that Moody’s credit ratings: (i) are current opinions of the future relative creditworthiness of securities and address no other risk; and (ii) are not statements of current or historical fact or recommendations to purchase, hold or sell particular securities.  Moody’s credit ratings and publications are not intended for retail investors, and it would be reckless and inappropriate for retail investors to use Moody’s credit ratings and publications when making an investment decision.  No warranty, express or implied, as the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose of any Moody’s credit rating is given or made by Moody’s in any form whatsoever.          

3.            To the extent permitted by law, Moody’s and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for: (i) any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with use of the Information; and (ii) any direct or compensatory damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud or any other type of liability that by law cannot be excluded) on the part of Moody’s or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with use of the Information.

4.            You agree to read [and be bound by] the more detailed disclosures regarding Moody’s ratings and the limitations of Moody’s liability included in the Information.     

5.            You agree that any disputes relating to this agreement or your use of the Information, whether sounding in contract, tort, statute or otherwise, shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York located in the City and County of New York, Borough of Manhattan.​​​

I AGREE
Related Issuers
Aguascalientes, Municipality of
Ahome (Los Mochis), Municipality of
Alberta, Province of
Atizapan de Zaragoza, Municipality of
Baja California, State of
Benito Juarez (Cancun), Municipality of
Bogota, Distrito Capital (Colombia)
British Columbia, Province of
Buenos Aires, City of
Buenos Aires, Province of
Ceara, State of
Centro, Municipality of (Villahermosa)
Chaco, Province of
Chalco, Municipality of
Chiapas, State of
Chihuahua, State of
Coacalco, Municipality of
Coatzacoalcos, Municipality of
Colima, Municipality of
Concordia University, Quebec
Cuautitlan Izcalli, Municipality of
Culiacan, Municipality of
Curitiba, City of
Durango, Municipality of
Durango, State Of
Durham, Regional Municipality of
Ecatepec de Morelos, Municipality of
Financement-Quebec
Formosa, Province of
Guanajuato, State of
Guasave, Municipality of
Guerrero, State of
Halton, Regional Municipality of
Hidalgo, State of
Huixquilucan, Municipality of
Hydro-Quebec
Ixtlahuaca, Municipality of
Leon, Municipality of
London, City of
Manitoba, Province of
Manzanillo, Municipality of
Mendoza, Province of
Merida, Municipality of
Metepec, Municipality of
Mexicali, Municipality of
Mexico, State of
Michoacan de Ocampo, State of
Minas Gerais, State of
Monterrey, Municipality of
Montreal Urban Community
Montreal, City of
Montreal, City of (Old)
Morelos, State of
Muskoka, District Municipality of
Nayarit, State of
New Brunswick Electric Finance Corporation
New Brunswick, Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Province of
Newfoundland Municipal Finance Corp.
Nogales, Municipality of
North Bay, City of
Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia Power Finance Corp.
Nova Scotia, Province of
Nuevo Leon, State of
Oaxaca de Juarez, Municipality of
Oaxaca, State of
Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation
Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation
Ontario Power Authority
Ontario, Province of
Ottawa, City of
Prince Edward Island, Province of
Puebla, State of
Puerto Penasco, Municipality of
Quebec, Province of
Queretaro, Municipality of
Queretaro, State of
Quintana Roo, State of
Reynosa, Municipality of
Rio de Janeiro, Municipality of
San Pedro Garza Garcia, Municipality of
Santiago del Estero, Province of
Sao Paulo, State of
Saskatchewan, Province of
Saskferco
Sinaloa, State of
Tabasco, State of
Tamaulipas, State of
Tampico, Municipality of
Tecamac, Municipality of
Tepic, Municipality of
Texcoco, Municipality of
The 55 School Board Trust
Tlalnepantla, Municipality of
Tlaxcala, State of
Toluca, Municipality of
Tonala, Municipality of
Toronto, City of
Tultitlan, Municipality of
Tuxtla Gutierrez, Municipality of
Uruapan, Municipality of
Vancouver, City of
Veracruz, State of
Waterloo, Regional Municipality of
Winnipeg, City of
York, Regional Municipality of
Yucatan, State of
Zacatecas, State of
Zapopan, Municipality of
Zitacuaro, Municipality of
Rating Action:

Moody's Announces Rating Impact of Joint Default Analysis Methodology for Non-U.S. Regional and Local Governments in the Americas

 The document has been translated in other languages

14 Nov 2006
Moody's Announces Rating Impact of Joint Default Analysis Methodology for Non-U.S. Regional and Local Governments in the Americas

Toronto, November 14, 2006 -- Moody's Investors Service published today the rating results of the application of the joint default analysis (JDA) methodology for non-U.S. regional and local governments (RLGs) in the Americas.

In October 2006, Moody's published a Special Comment report, entitled "The Application of Joint Default Analysis to Regional and Local Governments". The JDA methodology formally disaggregates the ratings of RLGs into four components: (i) an assessment of the RLG's baseline credit risk (on a scale of 1 to 21, where 1 represents the equivalent risk of Aaa, 2 represents Aa1 and so forth), (ii) the higher-tier or supporting government's domestic currency rating, (iii) an estimate of the default dependence between the RLG and the supporting government (expressed as a percentage), and (iv) an estimate of the likelihood of extraordinary support from the supporting government (expressed as a percentage).

The application of JDA in the Americas resulted in 24 RLG ratings upgraded, 75 RLG ratings affirmed, and ratings on 2 associated entities upgraded.

As a reflection of the application of JDA to government related issuers (GRIs), for which certain RLGs are the supporting governments, Moody's also raised the ratings on 6 GRIs.

Below is a list of the JDA inputs and final ratings for all the RLGs in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia and Mexico affected by the new rating methodology, together with the associated GRIs whose ratings were changed.

Argentina

RLG Ratings Affirmed

Buenos Aires, City of -- debt rating affirmed at B1 and Aa2.ar (Argentina National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 14, B3 rating on the Government of Argentina, 20% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Buenos Aires, Province of -- issuer rating affirmed at B3 and A3.ar (Argentina National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 16, B3 rating on the Government of Argentina, 20% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Chaco, Province of -- issuer and debt rating affirmed at Ca and D.ar (Argentina National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 20 stemming from the province's continuing default and expected loss to bondholders

Formosa, Province of -- issuer and debt rating affirmed at Ca and D.ar (Argentina National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 20 stemming from the province's continuing default and expected loss to bondholders

Mendoza, Province of -- foreign currency ratings for bonds due September 2018 affirmed at B2 and Aa3.ar (Argentina National Scale) with stable outlook, constrained by Argentina's foreign currency ceiling and based on domestic currency issuer ratings assigned at B1/Aa3.ar reflecting a BCA of 14, B3 rating on the Government of Argentina, 5% probability of support, and 70% default dependence

Santiago del Estero, Province of -- issuer rating affirmed at Caa3 and D.ar (Argentina National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 19 stemming from the province's continuing default and the expected loss to bondholders

Brazil

RLG Ratings Upgraded

Minas Gerais, State of -- issuer rating upgraded to B1, with a stable outlook (from B2, positive outlook), based on a BCA of 14, Ba2 rating on the Republic of Brazil, 20% probability of support, 70% default dependence

RLG Ratings Affirmed

Ceara, State of -- issuer rating affirmed at Ba2, with a stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Ba2 rating on the Republic of Brazil, 20% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Curitiba, City of -- issuer rating affirmed at Ba1 and Aa1.br (Brazilian National Scale) with a stable outlook, based on a BCA of 11, Ba2 rating on the Republic of Brazil, 20% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Rio de Janeiro, City of -- issuer rating affirmed at Ba3, with a stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, Ba2 rating on the Republic of Brazil, 20% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Sao Paulo, State of -- issuer rating affirmed at Ba2, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Ba2 rating on the Republic of Brazil, 35% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Canada

RLG Ratings Upgraded

Manitoba, Province of -- debt rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 3, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 90% default dependence

New Brunswick, Province of -- debt rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa3, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 4, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 90% default dependence

Newfoundland and Labrador, Province of -- debt rating upgraded to Aa2, with stable outlook (from A2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 5, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 90% default dependence

Northwest Territories -- issuer rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa3, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 4, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 90% default dependence

Nova Scotia, Province of -- debt rating upgraded to Aa2, with stable outlook (from A1, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 5, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 90% default dependence

Ontario, Province of -- debt and issuer rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 3, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence; the debt rating of The 55 School Board Trust upgraded to Aa1, with a stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook)

Prince Edward Island, Province of -- debt rating upgraded to Aa2, with stable outlook (from A1, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 5, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 90% default dependence

Quebec, Province of -- debt rating upgraded to Aa2, with stable outlook (from Aa3, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 5, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence; the debt rating of Financement-Quebec, guaranteed by the Province of Quebec, upgraded to Aa2, with a stable outlook (from Aa3, stable outlook)

Saskatchewan, Province of -- debt and issuer rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 3, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Montreal, City of -- debt and issuer rating upgraded to Aa2, with stable outlook (from A1, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 5, Aa2 rating on the Province of Quebec, 80% probability of support, 50% default dependence

Muskoka, District Municipality of -- issuer rating upgraded to Aa2, with stable outlook (from Aa3, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 4, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence

North Bay, City of -- debt rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 3, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Winnipeg, City of -- debt rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 3, Aa1 rating on the Province of Manitoba, 80% probability of support, 50% default dependence

RLG Ratings Affirmed

Alberta, Province of -- debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence

British Columbia, Province of -- issuer and debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aaa rating on the Government of Canada, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Durham, Regional Municipality of -- debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Halton, Regional Municipality of -- debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 50% default dependence

London, City of -- debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 50% default dependence

Ottawa, City of -- debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 50% default dependence

Toronto, City of -- debt rating affirmed at Aa1, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 2, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Vancouver, City of -- debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aaa rating on the Province of British Columbia, 80% probability of support, 50% default dependence

Waterloo, Regional Municipality of -- debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 70% default dependence

York, Regional Municipality of -- debt rating affirmed at Aaa, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 1, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, 80% probability of support, 50% default dependence

GRI Ratings Upgraded

Concordia University -- debt rating upgraded to Aa2, with stable outlook (from Aa3, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 5, Aa2 rating on the Province of Quebec, high probability of support, high default dependence

Hydro Quebec -- debt rating upgraded to Aa2, with stable outlook (from Aa3, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 8, Aa2 rating on the Province of Quebec, high probability of support, high default dependence

New Brunswick Electric Finance Corporation -- debt rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook(from Aa3, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 4, Aa1 rating on the Province of New Brunswick, high probability of support, high default dependence

Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation -- debt rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 3, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, high probability of support, high default dependence

Ontario Infrastructure Projects Corporation -- debt rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 3, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, high probability of support, high default dependence

Ontario Power Authority -- issuer rating upgraded to Aa1, with stable outlook (from Aa2, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 2 - 4, Aa1 rating on the Province of Ontario, high probability of support, high default dependence

Colombia

RLG Ratings Affirmed

Bogota, Distrito Capital -- issuer rating affirmed at Baa3, with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa3 rating on the Government of Colombia, 50% probability of support, 70% default dependence

Mexico

RLG Ratings Upgraded

Atizapan de Zaragoza, Municipality of -- issuer ratings upgraded to Ba1 and A1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from Ba2/A1.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 11, Ba3 rating on the State of Mexico, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Durango, Municipality of - issuer ratings upgraded to Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from Ba3/A3.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 12, Ba2 rating on the State of Durango, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Guasave, Municipality of - issuer ratings upgraded to Ba3 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from B1/Baa2.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 13, Ba2 rating on the State of Sinaloa, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Mexico, State of -- issuer ratings upgraded to Ba3 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from B3/Ba3.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 14, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 20% probability of support, 90% default dependence

Nuevo Leon, State of -- issuer ratings upgraded to Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from Ba1/A1.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 10, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5% probability of support, 90% default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa1/Aaa.mx.

Queretaro, State of -- issuer ratings upgraded to Baa2 and Aa2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from Baa3/Aa3.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 9, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5% probability of support, 90% default dependence

Puerto Penasco, Municipality of - issuer ratings upgraded to Ba3 and A3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from B1/Baa2.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 13, the credit risk profile of the State of Sonora, 20 % probability of support, 70 % default dependence.

Tepic, Municipality of - issuer ratings upgraded to Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from Ba3/A3.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 12, Baa3 rating on the State of Nayarit, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Zapotlan, Municipality of - issuer ratings upgraded to B1 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from B2/Baa3.mx, stable outlook), based on a BCA of 14, the credit risk profile of the State of Jalisco, 20 % probability of support, 70 % default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at (P)Ba2/A2.mx.

Zitacuaro, Municipality of - issuer ratings upgraded to Ba3 and A3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (from B1/Baa1.mx, positive outlook), based on a BCA of 13 , Ba1 rating on the State of Michoacan, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

RLG Ratings Affirmed

Aguascalientes, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Baa2 and Aa2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 9, the credit risk profile of the State of Aguascalientes, 50% probability of support, 90% default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa1/Aaa.mx

Ahome, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale) based on a BCA of 13, Ba2 rating on the State of Sinaloa, 20% probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Baja California , State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Benito Juarez, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at B2 and Ba2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 16, Ba1 rating on the State of Quintana Roo, 20% probability of support, 70% default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Ba1/A1.mx.

Centro, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed to Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa3 rating on the State of Tabasco, 50 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Chalco, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed to B1 and Baa2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 14, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico , 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Chiapas, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Chihuahua, State of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5% probability of support, 90% default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa1/Aaa.mx

Coacalco, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at B1 and Baa2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 14, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico , 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Coatzacoalcos, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba1 and A1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 11, Ba1 rating on the State of Veracruz, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Colima, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and A3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, the credit risk profile of the State of Colima, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Cuautitlan Izcalli, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and A3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Culiacan, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, Ba2 rating on the State of Sinaloa, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Durango, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Ecatepec, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at B1 and Baa2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 14, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico, 20 % probability of support , 90 % default dependence.

Guanajuato, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa1 and Aa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 8, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Guerrero, State of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5% probability of support, 90% default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa2/Aa2.mx.

Hidalgo, State of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5% probability of support, 90% default dependence.

Huixquilucan, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at B1 and Baa3,mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 14, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Ixtlahuaca, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13 , Ba3 rating on State of Mexico, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Leon, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa1 rating on the State of Guanajuato, 20 % probability of support , 90 % default dependence.

Manzanillo, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba1 and A1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 11, the credit risk profile of the State of Colima, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Mexicali, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, Baa3 rating on the State of Baja California, 20% probability of support, 90% default dependence.

Merida, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Ba2 rating on the State of Yucatan, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Metepec, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico , 20% probability of support , 70 % default dependence.

Michoacan , State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba1 and A1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 11, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support , 90 % default dependence.

Monterrey, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Ba1 and A1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa3 issuer rating on the State of Nuevo Leon, 50% probability of support, 70% default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa1/Aaa.mx.

Morelos, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence; debt ratings on two senior secured obligations (EDOMOR01 and Bancomer loan) affirmed at Baa2/Aa1.mx, and on the senior secured Santander Serfin bank loan affirmed at Ba1/A1.mx.

Nayarit, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Nogales, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, the credit risk profile of the State of Sonora , 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Oaxaca, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and A3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, Ba2 rating on the State of Oaxaca, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Oaxaca, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12 , Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support , 90 % default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa2/Aa2.mx.

Puebla, State of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5% probability of support, 90% default dependence.

Queretaro, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Baa1 and Aa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 8, Baa2 rating on the State of Queretaro, 50% probability of support, 70% default dependence.

Quintana Roo, State of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Ba1 and A1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 11, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5% probability of support, 90% default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa3/Aa2.mx.

Reynosa, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed to Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa2 rating on the State of Tamaulipas, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

San Pedro Garza Garcia, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa3 rating on the State of Nuevo Leon, 20% probability of support, 70% default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa1/Aaa.mx.

Sinaloa, State of - issuer ratings affirmed to Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence; debt ratings on senior secured bonds (EDOSIN04U) affirmed at Baa3/Aa2.mx and on senior secured bank loan affirmed at Baa3/Aa3.mx.

Tabasco, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa1/Aaa.mx.

Tamaulipas, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa2 and Aa2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 9, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Tampico, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa2 rating on the State of Tamaulipas , 20 % probability of support , 90 % default dependence.

Tecamac, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13 , Ba3 rating on State of Mexico , 20 % probability of support , 70 % default dependence.

Texcoco, Municipality of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and Baa1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, Ba3 issuer rating on the State of Mexico, 20% probability of support, 90% default dependence.

Tlaxcala, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Tlalnepantla, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico , 20 % probability of support , 90 % default dependence.

Toluca, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Tonala, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and A3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, the credit risk profile of the State of Jalisco, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Tultitlan, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at B1 and Baa2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 14, Ba3 rating on State of Mexico, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Tuxtla Gutierrez, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba3 and A3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 13, Ba2 rating on the State of Chiapas, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Uruapan, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook (changed from negative outlook), based on a BCA of 12, Ba1 rating on the State of Michoacan, 20 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Veracruz, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba1 and A1.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 11, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa3/Aa2.mx.

Yucatan, State of - issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5 % probability of support, 90 % default dependence.

Zacatecas, State of -- issuer ratings affirmed at Ba2 and A2.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 12, Baa1 rating on the Government of Mexico, 5% probability of support, 90% default dependence

Zapopan, Municipality of - issuer ratings affirmed at Baa3 and Aa3.mx (Mexico National Scale), with stable outlook, based on a BCA of 10, the credit risk profile of the State of Jalisco, 20 % probability of support , 70 % default dependence; senior secured debt ratings affirmed at Baa1/Aaa.mx.

Toronto
David Rubinoff
VP - Senior Credit Officer
International Subsovereign Group
Moody's Canada Inc.
(416) 214-1635

New York
Yves Lemay
Managing Director
International Subsovereign Group
Moody's Investors Service
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

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