New York, September 16, 2022 -- Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings -and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical units for the rated entity(entities) listed below.
The review was conducted through a portfolio review discussion held on 9 September 2022 in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers. A possible outcome from periodic reviews is a referral of a rating to a rating committee.
This publication does not announce a credit rating action and is not an indication of whether or not a credit rating action is likely in the near future. Credit ratings and outlook/review status cannot be changed in a portfolio review and hence are not impacted by this announcement.
Key Rating Considerations
The principal methodology used for the rated entities listed below was Regional and Local Governments published in January 2018. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on https://ratings.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
Key rating considerations on a forward-looking basis may include but are not limited to the following summarized below.
Regional and Local Governments
Economic Fundamentals: A regional and local governments (RLG) ability to service its debt depends on, among other factors, the sufficiency and reliability of its future revenues. These are tied, at least in part, to the local economy's ability to generate necessary revenue for the RLG's programs and services. Strong economic strength and lower economic volatility typically translate to a higher likelihood to withstand economic shocks that may impact revenue collection.
Institutional Framework: The institutional framework encompasses the arrangements that determine intergovernmental relations that shape an RLG's powers and responsibilities. The level of predictability and stability of the intergovernmental framework will impact the RLG's ability to implement and adhere to a multi-year fiscal agenda, while the level of financial flexibility imparted to the RLG will impact the RLG's responsiveness to changing fiscal circumstances.
Financial Performance and Debt Profile: Financial performance is the product of the accumulated decisions of the RLG's policymakers. Credit strength will be influenced across a variety of measures to gauge the ability of an RLG to implement policy decisions that generate balanced or positive fiscal outcomes and ensuring their ability to service debt.
Governance and Management: The quality of financial decision-making and execution, financial management practices and transparency of financial disclosures provides important insight into the RLG's ability to plan, articulate and undertake decisions that will impact the financial performance and debt profile.
Other rating considerations: This does not include an exhaustive description of all factors that our analysts consider for ratings in this sector. For instance, our analysis for ratings in this sector also takes into consideration the systemic risk of the operating environment, which is typically captured by the sovereign rating. We may also consider other factors including, but not limited to, contingent liabilities, extraordinary support from higher levels of government and history of default.
• Belgrade, City of
• Brno, City of
• Budapest, City of
• Communaute Francaise De Belgique
• Faroe Islands, Government of
• Flanders, the Community of
• Gothenburg, City of
• Istanbul, Metropolitan Municipality of
• Izmir, Metropolitan Municipality of
• Kharkiv, City of
• Kyiv, City of
• Liberec, Region of
• Moravian-Silesian, Region of
• Nur-Sultan, City of
• Oslo, City of
• Ostrava, City of
• Prague, City of
• South-Moravian Region
• Srpska, Republic of
• Walloon Region
• Warsaw, City of
• Zagreb, City of
The principal methodology used for the rated entities listed below was Government-Related Issuers Methodology published in February 2020. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on https://ratings.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
Key rating considerations on a forward-looking basis may include but are not limited to the following summarized below.
Government-Related Issuers Methodology
Assigning a Baseline Credit Assessment (BCA): The majority of Government-Related Issuers (GRIs) begin with an assessment of the GRI's standalone strength (i.e. BCA) – its ability to service and repay outstanding debt without recourse to extraordinary support from the supporting government - using the published sector-specific methodology that is most suitable for the predominant activities of the GRI. Our assessment of standalone strength includes any day-to-day support received from the government that can be clearly distinguished from extraordinary support. Support mechanisms, such as an obligation of the government to ensure the GRI's solvency and liquidity, are reflected in the BCA when they are legally or contractually documented.
Government uplift: The GRI's ratings include any uplift due to systemic support and typically focus on three structural factors and three factors explaining the level of the government's willingness to provide support. Structural factors address the legal and quasi-legal aspects of the government's relationship with the GRI and include: (1) guarantees, (2) ownership level and (3) barriers to support. The factors underlying willingness consider the softer connections between the two entities and include (4) the likelihood of government intervention, (5) political linkages and (6) economic importance. Support is determined using a joint default analysis framework which considers an estimate of the likelihood of extraordinary support, an assessment of the credit quality of the supporting government, and default correlation between the two entities.
GRIs without a BCA: In limited instances, it is not possible or meaningful to assign a BCA. The GRI is so inextricably linked to the government that a meaningful standalone BCA cannot be derived. In such cases, a top-down analytical approach is used that chiefly considers the ability and willingness of the government to provide timely support, instead of the usual bottom-up approach of starting with the BCA and then considering uplift towards the government's rating.
• Aquafin NV
• Societe Publique de Gestion de L'Eau
• Zagrebacki Holding D.O.O.
This announcement applies only to Rated Entities with EU rated, UK rated, EU endorsed and UK endorsed ratings. Rated Entities, with Non EU rated, non UK rated, non EU endorsed and non UK endorsed ratings may be referenced herein to the extent necessary, if they are part of the same analytical unit.
Please see the Issuer page on https://ratings.moodys.com for each of the ratings covered, most updated credit rating action, rating history, and Credit Rating action Press Release including the rating rationale and factors that could lead to a rating upgrade or downgrade.
This publication does not announce a credit rating action.
For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the issuer/deal page on https://ratings.moodys.com
for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.
Releasing Office:
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 1 212 553 0376
Client Service: 1 212 553 1653
