Issuu

Anfrage SPÖ – eingelangt: 4.10.2018 – Zahl: 29.01.425

LAbg. Michael Ritsch, MBA Clubobmann

Herrn Landeshauptmann Mag. Markus Wallner Landhaus 6900 Bregenz

Bregenz, 4. Oktober 2018

Die Rating-Noten für Vorarlberg Sehr geehrter Herr Landeshauptmann, mit einer Presseaussendung des Landes Vorarlberg, datiert mit 21.9.2018, 22:30 Uhr, ließen Sie verlauten, dass das Land Vorarlberg einmal mehr Rating-Bestnoten der Rating-Agentur Standard & Poor‘s bekommen hat. Es ist selbstredend schön, wenn man derartige Ratings bekommt und in keinster Weise zu kritisieren. Wie allerdings Rating-Agenturen ticken, können Sie selbst mit kleinem Aufwand im Internet nachlesen. Zudem, und das darf nicht vergessen werden, befinden sich zahlreiche österreichische Bundesländer mit Vorarlberg in bester Gesellschaft. So sind die Bundesländer Niederösterreich, Tirol, Oberösterreich, die Steiermark und sogar Kärnten ebenso in der sogenannten Gruppe „High Grade“ vertreten, was nichts anderes bedeutet, dass diese Länder gemäß der deutschen Beschreibung folgendermaßen einzustufen sind: „Sichere Anlage, Ausfallrisiko so gut wie vernachlässigbar, längerfristig aber etwas schwerer einzuschätzen“. Bei den nicht genannten Bundesländern ist nach Recherchen kein Rating eruierbar. Besonders bemerkenswert ist das Rating des Landes Kärnten, das durch die Abwicklung Hypo/Heta von Moody’s im Sommer 2015 auf die Stufe B3 gesenkt wurde und in drei Jahren dieses Rating um zwölf Stufen auf Aa3 wieder angehoben wurde. Angesichts Ihres Lobliedes auf das Land Vorarlberg (das Sie gerne auch auf andere Bundesländer beziehen können) wollen wir der Frage auf den Grund gehen, mit welchen Kosten eine derartige Prüfung verbunden ist, welche Aussagekraft sie wirklich hat und in welcher Form das Land Vorarlberg profitiert.

Aus den genannten Gründen richte ich gemäß § 54 der Geschäftsordnung des Vorarlberger Landtages folgende

Anfrage an Sie: 1.) Wer erteilt wie oft den Auftrag an die Ratingagentur/en zur Prüfung des Landes Vorarlberg? 2.) Wie oft hat die Ratingagentur Standard & Poor’s in den letzten zehn Jahren geprüft bzw. wie oft hat eine andere Ratingagentur die Prüfung vorgenommen (bitte um Angabe der Ratingagentur und das Jahr der Prüfung)? 3.) Gibt es eine rechtliche Verpflichtung (und wenn ja, wo ist dies geregelt) für gewisse Gebietskörperschaften, eine Prüfung durch eine Ratingagentur durchführen zu lassen und wenn ja, welche Gebietskörperschaften betrifft dies und in welchem Abstand muss geprüft werden? 4.) Gibt es eine Ausschreibung unter den größten Ratingagenturen, damit der Best- oder Billigstbieter den Zuschlag zur Prüfung bekommt und wenn nein, warum gibt es keine Ausschreibung? 5.) Mit welchen Kosten ist eine derartige Prüfung durch die Ratingagentur/en zu rechnen bzw. wie viel kostete die aktuelle Prüfung durch Standard & Poor’s? 6.) Angesichts der immer wieder aufflammenden Kritik an den Ratingagenturen stellt sich die Frage, wie valide die Prüfungsergebnisse tatsächlich sind (so ist z. B. Auftraggeber und Zahler derselbe – für Folgeaufträge ein nicht zu unterschätzender Einfluss). Wie schätzen Sie diese Problematik ein? 7.) Wie lautet das aktuelle Prüfergebnis im Detail (bitte um Übermittlung des aktuellen Berichtes)?

Clubobmann Michael Ritsch

Beantwortet: 24.10.2018 – Zahl: 29.01.425

Bregenz, am 24. Oktober 2018

Herrn Clubobmann LAbg. Michael Ritsch, MBA Sozialdemokratischer Landtagsclub im Wege der Landtagsdirektion 6900 Bregenz

Betreff:

Die Rating-Noten für Vorarlberg; Anfrage vom 4. Oktober 2018, Zl. 29.01.425

Sehr geehrter Herr Clubobmann, Ihre gemäß § 54 der Geschäftsordnung des Vorarlberger Landtages an mich gerichtete Anfrage beantworte ich wie folgt: 1.) Wer erteilt wie oft den Auftrag an die Ratingagentur/en zur Prüfung des Landes Vorarlberg? Als Kapitalmarktemittent ist die Hypo Vorarlberg auf ein Rating der großen internationalen Ratingagenturen angewiesen und wird daher seit 1999 von mindestens einer Ratingagentur bewertet. In diesem Prozess beurteilen die Ratingagenturen auch die wirtschaftliche Situation des Eigentümers (Land Vorarlberg) und seine Beziehungen zur Hypo Vorarlberg. Die Beauftragung für das Bankrating (und damit implizit für die Beurteilung des Landes) erfolgte durch die Hypo Vorarlberg, ab 2015 erfolgte die Beauftragung für das Landesrating formal durch das Land. Standardmäßig erfolgt ein jährliches Neu-Rating bzw. Update.

2.) Wie oft hat die Ratingagentur Standard & Poor’s in den letzten zehn Jahren geprüft bzw. wie oft hat eine andere Ratingagentur die Prüfung vorgenommen (bitte um Angabe der Ratingagentur und das Jahr der Prüfung)? Standard & Poor's (S&P) hat das Land im Zuge des Ratings für die Hypo Vorarlberg erstmals im Jahr 1999 geratet. Bis 2006 gab es keine Ratingveränderung für das Land, danach hat S&P die Hypo Vorarlberg und daher auch das Land nicht mehr beurteilt. Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung Landhaus, Römerstraße 15, 6901 Bregenz, Österreich | www.vorarlberg.at | DVR 0058751 markus.wallner@vorarlberg.at | T +43 5574 511 20000 | F +43 5574 511 920000

Ab 2007 hat die Hypo Vorarlberg Moody’s mit dem Bankrating beauftragt, die jedoch kein eigenes Rating für das Land veröffentlichen. Ab Oktober 2015 wurde S&P von der Hypo Vorarlberg und dem Land erneut mit der Erstellung eines Ratings (für Bank und Land) beauftragt. Seither erfolgte eine jährliche Validierung sowie hinsichtlich des Landes jeweils eine Bestätigung des Ratings. Bei der Methodologie von Moody’s gibt es keine eigene Beurteilung des Landes Vorarlberg, diese Einschätzung fließt in das Bankrating mit ein. Prüfungen durch Standard & Poor's: Ratingstufe Jahr/Datum Veröffentlichung AAA 1999-07-09 NR 2006-05-22 (NR: not rated; S&P-Rating wurde nicht mehr beauftragt) AA+* 2015-10-16 AA+ 2016-10-17 (Bestätigung) AA+ 2017-09-29 (Bestätigung) AA+ 2018-09-21 (Bestätigung) *Das Rating eines Landes kann nicht höher sein als jenes des Gesamtstaates.

3.) Gibt es eine rechtliche Verpflichtung (und wenn ja, wo ist dies geregelt) für gewisse Gebietskörperschaften, eine Prüfung durch eine Ratingagentur durchführen zu lassen und wenn ja, welche Gebietskörperschaften betrifft dies und in welchem Abstand muss geprüft werden? Nein. Das Rating des Landes Vorarlberg dient der Hypo Vorarlberg als wichtige Grundlage für Kapitalmarktemissionen und wird von ihr gewünscht.

4.) Gibt es eine Ausschreibung unter den größten Ratingagenturen, damit der Best- oder Billigstbieter den Zuschlag zur Prüfung bekommt und wenn nein, warum gibt es keine Ausschreibung? Da das Rating auf Wunsch der Hypo Vorarlberg durchgeführt wird, trägt die Bank die Kosten und fallen für das Land keine Kosten an. Das Land ist Vertragspartner und für die formale Beauftragung im Jahr 2015 war gemäß § 41 Bundesvergabegesetz 2006, BGBl. I Nr. 17/2006 idF BGBl. I Nr. 128/2013 (gültige Fassung zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsabschlusses im Jahr 2015), eine Direktvergabe möglich.

Seite 2

5.) Mit welchen Kosten ist eine derartige Prüfung durch die Ratingagentur/en zu rechnen bzw. wie viel kostete die aktuelle Prüfung durch Standard & Poor’s? Neben einer einmaligen Grundgebühr fallen jährliche Überprüfungsgebühren an, die sich nach den Gebührensätzen der Ratingagentur richten. Die aktuelle Prüfung (wie auch die vorgängigen) verursachte dem Land keine Kosten.

6.) Angesichts der immer wieder aufflammenden Kritik an den Ratingagenturen stellt sich die Frage, wie valide die Prüfungsergebnisse tatsächlich sind (so ist z. B. Auftraggeber und Zahler derselbe – für Folgeaufträge ein nicht zu unterschätzender Einfluss). Wie schätzen Sie diese Problematik ein? Die geschilderte Situation hat in der Vergangenheit zu Problemen und Kritik geführt. In der Folge hat die Europäische Union in einer Verordnung für Ratingagenturen diese auch adressiert (Verordnung (EU) Nr. 462/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. Mai 2013 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1060/2009 über Ratingagenturen). Durch die verstärkte Regulierung der Ratingagenturen und das geänderte Marktverhalten wurden die Probleme und Interessenskonflikte weitgehend behoben. Die großen Ratingagenturen haben mittlerweile auch Betriebsgrößen erreicht, bei denen der Wegfall eines Auftrags wirtschaftlich verkraftbar ist.

7.) Wie lautet das aktuelle Prüfergebnis im Detail (bitte um Übermittlung des aktuellen Berichtes)? Den Bericht finden Sie in der Beilage.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Seite 3

S&P Global Ratings

Research ········· ···················· ················· ·· ······· ···· ···· ··· ··· ········· ······ ··· ···· ······ ········ ····

Research Update:

Austrian State of Vorarlberg 'AA+/A-1+' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Stahle Primary Credit Analyst: Stefan Keitel, Frankfurt (49) 69-33-999-254; stefan.keitel@spglobal.com Secondary Contact: Alois Strasser, Frankfurt (49) 69-33-999-240; alois.strasser@spglobal.com Research Contributor: Hannah J Dimpker, Frankfurt (49) 69-33-999-154; hannah.dimpker@spglobal.com

Table Of Contents ····· ········ ········· ······ ····· ···· ············ ···· ············· ··· ··············· ··············· ···· ·· ····

Overview Rating Action Outlook Rationale Key Statistics Ratings Score Snapshot Key Sovereign Statistics Related Criteria Related Research Ratings List

SEPTEMBER 21, 2018

2103770

Research Update:

Austrian State ofVorarlberg 'AA+/A-1+' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Stahle Overview • Vorarl b erg's financial rnanagernent rnaintains prudent financial goals and low debt levels, despite recent budgetary challenges due to federally irnposed changes in funding of tasks . • We continue to believe that Vorarlberg has an excellent liquidity position. • We are therefore affirrning our ratings on Vorarlberg at ' AA+ / A- 1+' . • The outlook is stable.

Rating Action On Sept . 21, 2018, S&P Global Ratings affirrned its 'AA+ / A-1+' long- and short-terrn issuer credit ratings on the Austrian State of Vorarlberg . The outlook is stable.

Outlook The stable outlook reflects our expectation that, over 2018-2020 , Vorarlberg's financial rnanagernent will continue to tackle adverse budgetary developrnents as prudentl y as in the past, while rnaintainig its excellent li qu idity and debt positions. In our view, the ongoing rnonitoring and early identification of structural challenges play an irnporant role for Vorarlberg's creditworthiness .

Downside scenario We could lower our ratings on Vorarlberg if we observed a significant deterioration in the state's budgetary perforrnance. This could be brought on by either financial problerns at the state bank, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (A+ / Stab le / A-1 ) , requiring governrnent support, or a severe spike in public sector expenditure needs . We would also lower the ratings if we took a sirnilar action on the sovereign ratings on Austria (AA+ / Stable / A-1+).

Upside scenario An upgrade is currently high ly unlikely because it would require the institutional frarnework for Austrian states to becorne, in our view, rnore supportive and predictable, as well as an upgrade of Austria, since the sovereign rating currently caps the rating on Vorarlberg .

WWW .STANDARDANDPOORS.COM

SEPTEMBER 2 1, 2018 2

21 03770

Research Update: Austrian State of Vorarlberg 'AA+IA-1 + ' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Stahle

Rationale Our ratings on Vorarl b erg continue to reflect the state ' s excellent financial management , strong liquidity, and modest debt burden by international standards. Budgetary figures for 2017 have been slightly better than anticipated in our previous base-case scenario, and remain structurally sound through o u t our base-case scenario for the coming two years. We factor into our base case slightly negative assumptions for 2019 due to pressure from expenditures. However, we anticipate that the state ' s financial management will address these challenges in due course.

Financial management remains strong and forward-looking Financial management is still a key rating factor for Vorarlberg, and we expect the state will tackle financial problems in a timely and risk-averse manner. The state's very strong management continues to follow a clearly established budgeting process , with conservative planning assumptions on a worst-case basis. As a result, the state has regularly outperformed its b udget . Vo r arlberg has a stron g pol i tical commi t me n t to no n ew d ebt borrowing, which we regard as feasible. Foreign exchange loans and the use of derivatives and structures are forbidden by state law, which also supports our assessment. All Austrian states benefit from the generally close and consensus-base d cooperation between Austria's federal and state governments. According to the constitu t i on , the f e d e r al government can unilate r ally pass a new tax-s h a r ing system, b ut the federal and state levels of government usually work together to agree on the system. Constant uncertainty and risk for all Austrian states stems from the method of the federal government to push public service tasks to the sta t es with only limited prior consultation . Although these decisions are regu la r ly followed b y agreements between Austria and the states to reallocate the respective tasks for financial compensation, the short notice limits visibility on expenditure developments that the states need to account for in advance. Major expenditure pressure stems from health or elderly care , given the aging society with costly progress on treatment side (technology and p h armaceu ticals). However , Vorarlberg has historically weath e r e d these c h allenges well, which we view positively for t h e ratings. Vorarlberg's economy remains very strong , in our view, with GDP per capita of roughly â‚Ź46,400 (about $52 , 400) in 2017. We expect the state ' s economy will grow gene r ally in line with the national average. Vorarlberg enjoys a diversified economy, but its main growt h engine is the indus t rial and manufact u ring sector , with a considerab le portion of business concentrated in t he Rhine Valley. Vorarlberg exports around 60% of the goods and services it produces.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM

SEPTEMBER 21 , 2018 3

2103770

Research Upda te: Austrian State of Vorarlberg 'AA+/A-1 +' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Stah le

Budgetary trend remains stable, despite heightened expenditure pressure According to our forecast , Vorarlberg ' s operating balance will average 7% of Operating revenues over 2018-2020. However, our projections of Vorarlberg's budgetary figures are somewhat blurred by the state's conservative approach to its own budgetary process and the uncertainty of developments in expenditures. We are confident that the state will adequately man age its budgetary challenges throughout 2018, but the recent developments regarding the c h anges in funding of civil service tasks imposed by t h e federal government on t he states prompts us to expect a slight dip in the state ' s operating balance in 2019. Nevertheless, we continue to view Vorarlberg ' s overall budgetary performance as strong. We regard Vorarlberg's budgetary flexibility as average in international terms. Generally, the portion of modifiable revenu es for Austrian states is very low, since t h ey cannot influence shared taxes. Contrary to most Austrian states, though, Vorarlberg has an above-average capability to generate revenues from asset sales, a l though these are not currently on the political agenda. In our view, however , Vorarlbe r g has the means to increase its generally limited revenue flexibility by one-off measures if needed. Vorarlberg continues to post the lowest tax-supported debt ratio of all Austrian states (6 . 75% tax-s u pported debt of consolidated operating revenues in our 2018 base-case scenario ) , and we forecast it will remain stable u ntil 2020. Both direct debt and tax-supported debt are equivalent and very low in an international comparison. All debt is amortizi n g and denominated in e u ros, effectively minimal i zing refinancing risks and eliminating foreign excha nge risks. Additionally, Vorarlberg's pension liabilit i es are lower than those of most Austrian states , which further supports the state ' s credit strength . The state also has significant scope for b orrowing before we wou ld consider reassessing its debt position . The state's contingent liabilities are also b r oadly unchanged. By far t h e largest liability for Vorarl b erg remai n s its majority owners h ip of Hypo Vorarlberg, which leads us to assess t h e state ' s l iabilities as high, given the bank ' s size and financial position. The bank is very la r ge compare d with the state's budget size, and against other Austrian or German state banks or Swiss cantonal banks relative to the bu dget sizes of their respective government owners. Although we view t h e bank as se l f-supporting , we consider that the state has a commitment and t h e ability to support the bank in t h e unlikely event o f stress . We note that the bank has adequate capitalization and sou nd risk management, wh ich somewh at reduces the risk that the state would b e called on to provide support. Conside r ing Vorarlberg's very low debt service of b elow 1% of annual ope r ating revenues, we regard the state ' s liquidity position as excellent, with well above 1 20% of annual debt se r vice covered. This is despite t h e state government's strategy of hold i ng very low leve l s o f liquidity reserves. The annual debt service is easily covered b y a committed credit line with Hypo Vorarlberg . In our view, Vorarlberg has a proven t r ack record of suffic i ent

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM

SEPTEMBER 21 , 2018 4

2103770

R esearch Update: Austrian State of Vorar lberg 'AA +/A-1 +' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Sta hle

access to a deep and liquid capital rnarket at all tirnes and access to a diversified pool of banks.

Key Statistics Table 1

State of Vorarlberg Selected Indicators --Fiscal year end Dec. 31-2017

2020bc

2015

2016

Operating revenues

1,468

1,502

1,557

1,643

1,692

1,749

Operating expenditures

1,333

1,386

1,435

1,526

1,576

1,627

135

115

122

117

116

122

Operating balance

2018bc

2019bc

(Mil.€)

Operating balance (% of operating revenues)

9.2

7.7

7.9

7.1

6.8

7.0

Capital revenues

202

209

212

191

203

187

Capital expenditures

337

332

342

315

341

334

(7)

(8)

(6)

(23)

(26)

0.0

(0.4)

(0 .4)

(0 .3 )

(1.2)

(1.3)

Balance after capital accounts Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenues) Debt repaid Grass borrowings Balance after borrowings

(0)

(7)

(8)

(6)

(23)

(26)

Modifiable revenues (% of operating revenues)

5.1

5.2

5.4

4.7

5.0

5.2

20.2

19.3

17. 1

17.8

17.0

111

Capital expenditures (% of total expenditures) Direct debt (outstanding at year-end) Direct debt (% of operating revenues)

7.6

7.4

7.1

6.8

6.6

6.3

Tax-supported debt (outstanding at year-end)

111

Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenues)

7.6

7.4

7.1

6.8

6.6

6.3

Interest (% of operating revenues)

0.1

Local GDP per capita (€)

44,800

44,700

46,400

48 ,3 00

49 ,700

51,000

National GDP per capita (€)

40,128

40 ,607

42 ,100

43 ,900

45,300

46,500

The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as weil as international sources, reflecting S& P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer. bc--Base case, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' expectations of the most likely scenario.

Ratings Score Snapshot Table 2

State of Vorarlberg Ratings Score Snapshot Key rating factors Institutional framework

Very predictable and weil balanced

Economy

Very strong

Financial management

Very strong

Budgetary flexibility

Average

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM

SEPTEMBER 21 , 2018 5

2103770

Research Update: Austrian State of Vorarlberg 'AA+IA-1+' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Stahle

Table 2

State of Vorarlberg Ratings Score Snapshot (cont.) Budgetary performance

Streng

Liquidity

Exceptional

Debt burden

Very low

Contingent liabilities

High

S&P Global Ratings bases its ratings on local and regional governments on the eight main rating factors listed in the table above. Section A of S&P Global Ratings' "Methodology For Rating Non-US. Local And Regional Governments," published on June 30, 2014, summarizes how the eight factors are combined to derive the foreign currency rating on the government.

Key Sovereign Statistics Sovereign Risk Indicators, July 5, 2018. An interactive version is also available at http: // www.spratings . com/ sri.

Related Criteria • General Criteria: Methodology For Linking Long-Term And Short-Term Ratings , April 7, 2017 • Crite r ia - Governments - International Public Finance: Methodology For Rating Non-U.S. Local And Regional Governments, June 30, 2014 • Criteria - Governments - International Public Finance: Methodology And Assumptions For Analyzing The Liquidity Of Non-U . S. Local And Regional Governments And Related Entities And For Rating Their Commercial Paper Programs, Oct. 15, 2009 • General Criteria: Use Of CreditWatch And Outlooks, Sept. 14, 2009

Related Research • Research Update: Austria 'AA+ / A-1+' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Stable, Sept . 14, 2018 • Public Finance System Overview : Austrian States, Sept. 6, 2018 • Default, Transition, and Recovery: 2017 Annual International Public Finance Default Study And Rating Transitions, June 11, 2018 • Considerable Tax Inflows Will Curtail German , Swiss, And Austrian Local And Regional Government Borrowing In 2018, Feb. 22 , 2018 • International Public Finance Rating Trends: German, Austrian, And Swiss Local And Regional Gove rnments, Nov. l , 2017 • Institutional Framework Assessments For Non-U.S. Local And Regional Governments, Sept. 21, 2017

In accordance with our relevant policies and procedures, the Rating Committee was composed of analysts that are qualified to vote in the committee, with

WWW .STANDARDANDPOORS.COM

SEPTEMBER 21 , 201 8

2 103770

Research Update: Austrian State of Vorarlberg 'AA+IA-1 +' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Stahle

sufficient experience to convey the appropriate level of knowledge and understanding of the methodology applicable ( see 'Related Criteria And Research ' ). At the onset of the committee , the chair confirmed that the information provided to the Rating Committee by the primary analyst had been distributed in a timely manner and was sufficient for Committee members to make an informed decision. After the primary analyst gave opening remarks and explained the recommendation, the Committee discussed key rating factors and critical issues in accordance with the relevant criteria. Qualitative and quantitative risk factors were considered and discussed , looking at track-record and forecasts. The committee's assessment of the key rating factors is reflected in the Ratings Score Snapshot above. The chair ensured every voting member was given the opportunity to articulate his / her opinion. The chair or designee reviewed the draft report to ensure consistency with the Committee decision. The views and the decision of the rating committee are summarized in the above rationale and outlook. The weighting of all rating factors is described in the methodology used in this rating action ( see 'Related Criteria And Research').

Ratings List Ratings Affirmed Vorarlberg (State of) Issuer Credit Rating

AA+/Stable/A-1+

Additional Contact: EMEA Sovereign and !PF; SovereignlPF@spglobal.com

Certain terms used in this report, particularly certain adjectives used to express our view on rating relevant factors, have specific meanings ascribed to them in our criteria , and should therefore be read in conjunction with such criteria. Please see Ratings Criteria at www.standardandpoors.com for further information . Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.capitaliq.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on S&P Global Ratings' public website at www.standardandpoors . com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column. Alternatively, call one of the following S&P Global Ratings numbers: Client Support Europe (44) 20-7176-7176; London Press Office (44) 20-7176-3605 ; Paris (33) 1-4420-6708; Frankfurt ( 49) 69-33-999-225; Stockholm (46) 8 - 440-5914; or Moscow 7 (495) 783-4009.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM

SEPTEMBER 21 , 2018 7

2103770

CopyrightÂŠ 2018 Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as weil as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLJED WARRANTJES, JNCLUDJNG, BUT NOT LJMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTJCULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WJTH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees , or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are Statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or seil any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/ or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Ratingrelated publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as weil as any liability for any damage alleged to have been sutTered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain credit-related analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com {free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

Standard & Poor's I Research I September 21, 2018

8 2103770