Global Credit Research Credit Opinion 12 DEC Credit Opinion: OTP Bank (Ukraine) OTP Bank (Ukraine) Ukraine. Ratings. Bank Deposits -Dom Curr

Transcription

1 Global Credit Research Credit Opinion 12 DEC 2008 Credit Opinion: OTP Bank (Ukraine) OTP Bank (Ukraine) Ukraine Ratings Category Moody's Rating Outlook Stable Bank Deposits -Fgn Curr B2/NP Bank Deposits -Dom Curr Ba1/NP NSR Bank Deposits -Dom Curr Aa1.ua/-- Bank Financial Strength D Parent: OTP Bank Outlook Rating(s) Under Review Bank Deposits -Fgn Curr A3/P-2 Bank Deposits -Dom Curr *Aa3/P-1 Bank Financial Strength *C+ Senior Unsecured *Aa3 Subordinate *A1 Other Short Term P-1 * Placed under review for possible downgrade on November 7, 2008 Contacts Analyst Phone Elena Redko/Moscow Yaroslav Sovgyra/Moscow Reynold R. Leegerstee/London Yana Ruvinskaya/Moscow Key Indicators OTP Bank (Ukraine) [1] Avg. Total assets (US$ million) Shareholders' Equity (US$ million) Return on average assets Recurring earnings power [2] Net interest margin Cost/income ratio (%) [3] Problem loans % gross loans Tier 1 Ratio (%) [1] As of December 31. [2] Preprovision income % average assets [3] Non-Interest Epense % Operating Income Opinion SUMMARY RATING RATIONALE Moody's assigns a bank financial strength rating (BFSR) of D to OTP Bank (OTP), which translates into a Ba2/NP Baseline Credit Assessment (BCA). The rating reflects the bank's strong risk management processes, which are based on those of its predecessor (Raiffeisenbank Ukraine - former subsidiary of Raiffeisen Zentralbank Oesterreich AG), as well as its solid and improved franchise as one of top ten banks in the country and its financial fundamentals, especially its profitability, efficiency and asset quality.

2 However, the BFSR is constrained by the deteriorating operating and still volatile political environment in Ukraine, increasing pressures on the bank's liquidity position and the limited branch network. Other significant concerns are: the rapid growth in the bank's loan book in recent years, which quality has yet to be seen in economic slowdown; the unseasoned nature of the retail and SME loan portfolio, together with ecessive concentrations in the corporate book; epected pressure on historically moderate internal capacity to generate capital on the back of continuous margin squeeze and potential asset quality issues, necessitating eternal injections; and high dependence on its parent in funding resulting in concentration risks. OTP's Ba1/NP Global Local Currency (GLC) deposit ratings incorporate (i) the BCA of Ba2 derived from the bank's BFSR; (ii) our assessment of a very high probability of parental support from the bank's 100% owner, OTP Bank (Hungary) (with an A2 BCA); and (iii) a low probability of systemic support, given the bank's importance to the national financial system as a top ten bank. There is thus one-notch uplift from the bank's BCA. The GLC rating of RBA is constrained by the local currency deposit ceiling for Ukraine of Ba1. Credit Strengths - Support from parent underpins the ratings - Solid franchise as a top 10 Ukrainian bank and notable market shares - Corporate governance standards and risk management processes - Robust asset quality, profitability and efficiency - Eperienced management team Credit Challenges - Deteriorating operating environment in Ukraine is likely to put pressure on the bank's financial fundamentals over a medium term - The rapid growth in the bank's loan book in recent years, which quality has yet to be seen in economic slowdown - High single-name concentration in loan book - Non-equity funding is ecessively dependent on parent - Relatively small branch network Rating Outlook All ratings carry stable outlook. What Could Change the Rating - Up Moody's does not anticipate a BFSR upgrade in the near future. In the longer term, the BFSR would likely be upgraded in the event of (i) a strengthening of capital adequacy measures on the back of an improved internal capacity to generate capital; (ii) a strengthening of the bank's franchise (by further implementing new products, increasing the number of products per customer, and improving customer reach, maintaining or perhaps increasing market shares) without sacrificing profitability, asset quality or liquidity; (iii) a reduction in concentration in the loan book in relation to equity and pre-provision income; (iv) diversification of the funding base beyond funding provided by parent, and/or (v) further enhancements in risk management systems and a more cautious approach to risks. The local currency deposit ratings of the bank are constrained by the country ceiling for Ukraine and as such unlikely to be upgraded unless the country ceiling is raised. Similarly, the long-term foreign currency deposit rating would likely be upgraded following an upward movement in the country ceiling. What Could Change the Rating - Down The bank's BFSR is well positioned and no downward pressure is anticipated in the foreseeable future. In the longer term, continuous deterioration in the operating environment that led to a material decline in asset quality, liquidity or capitalisation, requiring an eternal bailout, would eert pressure on the BFSR. A downgrade of OTP's GLC deposit ratings could occur if the estimated probability of eternal support were to

3 decrease. Recent Results and Developments OTP's total assets, as reported under an (un-audited) IFRS-based framework, amounted to US$5.2 billion as of the end of September 2008 and net income of US$67.5 million for the nine months then ended. In November 2008 the bank's shareholders injected additional capital of UAH862 million. DETAILED RATING CONSIDERATIONS Detailed considerations for OTP's currently assigned ratings are as follows: Bank Financial Strength Rating Moody's assigns a D BFSR to OTP, underpinned by the bank's solid franchise in Ukraine and its cautious approach to market risks but constrained by its tightening liquidity, high single-name borrower concentrations in comparison with pre-provision income and unseasoned nature of the bank's loan portfolio that could be stressed in the currently deteriorating operating environment. Other credit challenges include a heavy reliance on its parent for funding in conjunction with a growing dependence on market funds, and less wide-spread branch network coverage than local peers. As a point of reference, the assigned BFSR is line with the outcome generated by Moody's bank financial strength scorecard. Qualitative Factors (70%) Factor 1: Franchise Value OTP is the ninth-largest bank in Ukraine in terms of total assets (market share of 3.3%), seventh-largest by gross loans (3.9%), sith-largest by retail loans (5.5%) and ninth-largest in terms of loans to corporate borrowers (2.9%) as at 30 September 2008 (in accordance with National Bank of Ukraine statistics). The bank has a constrained branch network limited to 24 branches, 137 outlets and 29 representative offices in all major regions of Ukraine with more entrenched positions in its home Kyiv region, with further plans to increase its regional presence. OTP's franchise value has strengthened considerably in recent years as the bank has diversified away from a reliance on large corporates in its lending activities and is strengthening its positions in such relatively new segments (in the Ukrainian contet) as SME and retail. As at 30 September 2008, 46% of the gross loan book was etended to corporate borrowers, 38% to retail borrowers (around three-quarters of this is mortgage loans) and 16% to SMEs. As noted, around three-quarters of the retail loans are mortgage eposures, with the aim of securing earnings stability over the longer term. We note the relatively manageable risks and long tenor of such loans, however subject to stability in operating environment which is currently deteriorating. On the other hand, the bank's franchise is quite limited on the liability side as the bank considers its parent as one of the main contributors of funding going forward. This results in a narrowing of the core deposit base. In our opinion, an overall score of D+ for franchise value is an appropriate measure of the bank's moderate market shares, limited branch network but good product diversification. Factor 2: Risk Positioning OTP's supervisory board consists eclusively of its shareholder's representatives and members that are not fully independent from the owners; this is mitigated somewhat by the bank's close integration with its parent, which has relatively advanced corporate governance standards in place. The bank's conservative risk management and rigorous underwriting standards were inherited as part of the business approach of Raiffeisen International, the former parent of the bank, and are implemented by an eperienced professional management team. The currently mounting competitive pressure is potentially associated with a loosening in credit underwriting standards. OTP's loan book is somewhat concentrated: the 20 largest borrower eposures accounted for close to more than

4 100% of Tier 1 capital at end of H and the top three borrowers 25% of Tier 1 capital, making loan book quality susceptible to the performance of a few customers. This risk is mitigated to some etent by the fact that these names belong to the most sophisticated economic groups (in the Ukrainian contet) with interests that are normally diversified; however, we also understand that borrowers' credit quality is far from investment-grade. In addition, the bank's rapid growth in recent years conceals credit risks that may become evident when the loans, especially those to consumers and SMEs, become more seasoned. Another source of risk stems from US dollardenominated loans (especially long-term mortgage loans which prevail in the retail book, provided to borrowers with un-hedged earnings), which quality in terms of currently depreciating local currency has yet to be seen. The bank's funding is heavily concentrated, with financing from the parent (including sub-debt) representing up to 65%% of total non-equity funding at end-q Its dependence on domestic and international market funding was also quite high (15% of non-equity funding at end-q3 2008) when considered in conjunction with the high dependence on the parent. However, this is mitigated somewhat by the fact that a large portion of the cross-border funding (ecluding the parent's financing) was provided by IFIs, which are normally considered a relatively stable source of funding in a market distress (as opposed to non-policy banks). At the same time, the majority of the bank's funding is nominated in foreign currency, it could put additional pressure on the bank's earnings through revaluation losses as local currency lost almost 40% of its value with respect to US dollar and 25% with respect to Euro in October-November The bank's market risk appetite, as measured by the potential losses on trading and non-trading books due to major market movements, is modest as its eposures are limited fied-income instruments (as opposed to shares), which include t-bills and bonds of Ukrainian blue-chips. The bank's strategy limits its investments to fied-income instruments, not allowing investments in shares. OTP releases condensed financial statements in accordance with IFRS on a monthly basis and full scope IFRS financial on annual basis, but we are of the opinion that the level of public disclosures could be improved to include more relevant information - especially in the area of risk management. OTP's D score for risk positioning reflects the high level of single-name concentration in the loan book and high dependence on its parent in funding in line with the very narrow deposit base, the very high pace of growth in the bank's loan book, which is associated with higher credit risks, as well as FX related risks. It also reflects the strong risk management framework, as evidenced by rigid credit underwriting criteria (and management information systems in line with those standards maintained by OTP). In our view, a neutral trend for the bank's risk positioning is appropriate, given the emphasis on epanding the business in the years ahead. Factor 3: Regulatory Environment For a discussion of the regulatory environment, see Moody's latest Banking System Outlook on Ukraine, published in November Factor 4: Operating Environment This factor is also common to all Ukrainian banks. Moody's assigns an E+ score for the overall operating environment. For a discussion of the operating environment, see Moody's latest Banking System Outlook on Ukraine, published in November Quantitative Factors (30%) Factor 5: Profitability Trend: Weakening The bank's bottom-line profit is underpinned by recurring sources of income, which chiefly include net interest income and, to a lesser etent, fee & commission income. The net interest margin will likely be preserved in the range of 5-7% going forward as the bank relies on reasonably priced funding, which represents a blend of crossborder funding and low-cost customer deposits, channeling those funds into higher-yield SME and retail and loweryield corporate loans. However, we note that the bank's ability to generate earnings could be stressed by potential threats to the bank's asset quality given current operating environment and economic slowdown. The bank's A score does not fully capture our concerns with regard to the future earning streams thus we assign Weakening trend to this factor. Factor 6: Liquidity

5 The presence of a financially strong parent gives the bank an advantage in providing it with access to longer-term, predictable and lower-cost international financing. On the other hand, the dependence on its parent (up to 65% of non-equity funding at end-q3 2008) raises concentration risks. The disruption risk is mitigated by the strategic link of its parent with its Ukrainian subsidiary. Given the stable nature of the parent's funding, we are inclined to classify this type of funding as deposits, resulting in an adjusted loan-to-deposit ratio of 117% at end-q3 2008, demonstrating a low dependence on market funding. The bank's dependence on other sources of cross-border funding is high, but the fact that bulk of the loans are provided by IFIs is considered a mitigating factor as IFIs normally tolerate higher risks than privately owned (non-policy) banks. Although this has allowed the bank to better match liquidity gaps, in the longer term it may entail higher refinancing risks. Nevertheless, customer accounts (about 30% of non-equity funding) include customer accounts/deposits that have been stable over time while bearing a short-term contractual maturity profile (being regularly rolled over), but have to be tested through recent developments on the market following imposed by the regulator partial freeze of deposits (moratorium on premature deposit withdrawal in the system) as such measures could damage vulnerable confidence on the market in the medium term. The bank's liquidity management is reasonably well-developed, allowing it to monitor its liquidity position on an ongoing basis (its treasury reports, which are part of MIS, are detailed and are produced and used by management regularly). As part of liquidity management, given the bank's reliance on its parent for funding, internal limits such as the net loans/customer deposits ratio are ecessive, in Moody's view. The current score of D- for OTP's liquidity takes account of the growing dependence on the parent for funding. Moody's would like to see a diversification of the bank's funding base as well as the elimination of negative liquidity gaps (based on contractual maturities) within the one-year liquidity bucket (which was the case on a historical basis). Factor 7: Capital Adequacy The bank's internal capital generation is not keeping pace with the rapid epansion in assets, and it has to resort to periodic capital injections from its shareholder. OTP's capitalisation is adequate, with the total Capital Adequacy Ratio and Tier 1 ratio standing at around 18% and 15% of risk weighted assets as at 30 September 2008, respectively. In addition the bank's shareholders injected additional capital in amount of close to UAH862 million in November The bank relies on its parent to replenish its capital and this will likely remain the case going forward. The score for capitalisation has been lowered from A to C+ to take into account of the bank's inability to generate sufficient economic capital on a standalone basis and its constant need to resort to additional capital. Factor 8: Efficiency The bank's impressive efficiency has been maintained thanks to a low cost base. The key efficiency ratios were historically less than 3% for the cost to average assets ratio, and less than 40% for the cost-to-income ratio (for the latter ratio we took a three-year horizon)., Going forward, the bank's cost base will grow only moderately, caused by inflation. The branch network enlargement will be basically completed by end-2008 and only organic epansion in selective regions is epected, the bank will be focused on process optimization and efficiency providing for eistent network in 2009 while more active regional development is subject to more favorable operating environment. This assumptions are reflected in A score for efficiency with Neutral trend. Factor 9: Asset Quality Trend: Weakening The bank's asset quality has been healthy historically, with problem loans (doubtful and loss category as per NBU classification) accounting for 1.9% of the gross loan book as of 31 December 2007 (2006: 1.5%). This demonstrates a reasonable asset quality given the bank's increased reliance on riskier SME and retail loans (as opposed to the large corporate borrowers with longer credit histories). Loans provided to SMEs operating in the agricultural segment account for a significant portion of NPLs. We note, however, that the recent rapid growth of OTP's loan portfolio may potentially understate the actual level of problem loans, while the bank's relatively short track record in the fast-growing retail and SME lending business does not enable us to judge the downside potential of its asset quality. In our opinion, an A score for asset quality is somewhat high for the bank given its highly concentrated loan portfolio and the fact that the loan book was originated in booming economy while its behavior under deteriorating has not been tested; thus we maintain a weakening trend. Global Local Currency Deposit Rating (Joint Default Analysis) Moody's assigns global local currency deposit ratings of Ba1/NP to OTP. The ratings are supported not only by the bank's BCA of Ba2 but also by Moody's assessment of a very high probability of parental support in case of need from OTP Bank (Hungary) (which has a BCA of A2) and a low probability of systemic support (Ukraine's local

6 currency deposit ceiling is Ba1). This results in one-notch uplift from its BCA of Ba2. Moody's assessment of a very high probability of parental support is based on (i) the management control of OTP by OTP Bank (Hungary), (ii) OTP's name association with OTP Bank's name, and (iii) the strong strategic fit of OTP within OTP Bank's Group (among other things, OTP is its parent's second largest subsidiary (out of eight) accounting for a material share of the parent's consolidated assets and loan book) and hence a low risk of OTP being disposed of by its parent. The low systemic support assessment reflects the bank's importance to the Ukrainian financial system based on its considerable market shares as a top ten Ukrainian bank. National Scale Rating Moody's rates OTP Aa1.ua on Ukraine's National Scale. Foreign Currency Deposit Rating The B2/NP foreign currency deposit ratings are constrained by the B2/NP foreign currency deposit ceiling for Ukraine. ABOUT MOODY'S BANK RATINGS Bank Financial Strength Rating Moody's Bank Financial Strength Ratings (BFSRs) represent Moody's opinion of a bank's intrinsic safety and soundness and, as such, eclude certain eternal credit risks and credit support elements that are addressed by Moody's Bank Deposit Ratings. BFSRs do not take into account the probability that the bank will receive such eternal support, nor do they address risks arising from sovereign actions that may interfere with a bank's ability to honor its domestic or foreign currency obligations. Factors considered in the assignment of BFSRs include bankspecific elements such as financial fundamentals, franchise value, and business and asset diversification. Although BFSRs eclude the eternal factors specified above, they do take into account other risk factors in the bank's operating environment, including the strength and prospective performance of the economy, as well as the structure and relative fragility of the financial system, and the quality of banking regulation and supervision. Global Local Currency Deposit Rating A deposit rating, as an opinion of relative credit risk, incorporates the BFSR as well as Moody's opinion of any eternal support. Specifically, Moody's Bank Deposit Ratings are opinions of a bank's ability to repay punctually its deposit obligations. As such, they are intended to incorporate those aspects of credit risk relevant to the prospective payment performance of rated banks with respect to deposit obligations, which includes: intrinsic financial strength, sovereign transfer risk (in the case of foreign currency deposit ratings), and both implicit and eplicit eternal support elements. Moody's Bank Deposit Ratings do not take into account the benefit of deposit insurance schemes which make payments to depositors, but they do recognize the potential support from schemes that may provide assistance to banks directly. According to Moody's joint default analysis (JDA) methodology, the global local currency deposit rating of a bank is determined by the incorporation of eternal elements of support into the bank's Baseline Credit Assessment. In calculating the Global Local Currency Deposit rating for a bank, the JDA methodology also factors in the rating of the support provider, in the form of the local currency deposit ceiling for a country, Moody's assessment of the probability of systemic support for the bank in the event of a stress situation and the degree of dependence between the issuer rating and the Local Currency Deposit Ceiling. National Scale Rating National scale ratings are intended primarily for use by domestic investors and are not comparable to Moody's globally applicable ratings; rather they address relative credit risk within a given country. A Aaa rating on Moody's National Scale indicates an issuer or issue with the strongest creditworthiness and the lowest likelihood of credit loss relative to other domestic issuers. National Scale Ratings, therefore, rank domestic issuers relative to each other and not relative to absolute default risks. National ratings isolate systemic risks; they do not address loss epectation associated with systemic events that could affect all issuers, even those that receive the highest ratings on the National Scale. Foreign Currency Deposit Rating Moody's ratings on foreign currency bank obligations derive from the bank's local currency rating for the same class of obligation. The implementation of JDA for banks can lead to high local currency ratings for certain banks, which could also produce high foreign currency ratings. Nevertheless, it should be noted that foreign currency deposit ratings are in all cases constrained by the country ceiling for foreign currency bank deposits. This may result in the assignment of a different, and typically lower, rating for the foreign currency deposits relative to the bank's rating for local currency obligations.

7 Foreign currency debt rating Foreign currency debt ratings are derived from the bank's local currency debt rating. In a similar way to foreign currency deposit ratings, foreign currency debt ratings may also be constrained by the country ceiling for foreign currency bonds and notes; however, in some cases the ratings on foreign currency debt obligations may be allowed to pierce the foreign currency ceiling. A particular mi of rating factors are taken into consideration in order to assess whether a foreign currency bond rating pierces the country ceiling. They include the issuer's global local currency rating, the foreign currency government bond rating, the country ceiling for bonds and the debt's eligibility to pierce that ceiling. About Moody's Bank Financial Strength Scorecard Moody's bank financial strength model (see scorecard below) is a strategic input in the assessment of the financial strength of a bank, used as a key tool by Moody's analysts to ensure consistency of approach across banks and regions. The model output and the individual scores are discussed in rating committees and may be adjusted up or down to reflect conditions specific to each rated entity. About Moody's Bank Financial Strength Scorecard Moody's bank financial strength model (see scorecard below) is a strategic input in the assessment of the financial strength of a bank, used as a key tool by Moody's analysts to ensure consistency of approach across banks and regions. The model output and the individual scores are discussed in rating committees and may be adjusted up or down to reflect conditions specific to each rated entity. Rating Factors OTP Bank (Ukraine) Rating Factors [1] A B C D E Total Score Trend Qualitative Factors (70%) E+ Factor: Franchise Value D+ Neutral Market Share and Sustainability Geographical Diversification Earnings Stability Earnings Diversification [2] Factor: Risk Positioning D- Neutral Corporate Governance [2] - Ownership and Organizational Compleity - Key Man Risk - Insider and Related-Party Risks Controls and Risk Management - Risk Management - Controls Financial Reporting Transparency - Global Comparability - Frequency and Timeliness - Quality of Financial Information Credit Risk Concentration - Borrower Concentration - Industry Concentration Liquidity Management Market Risk Appetite Factor: Operating Environment E+ Neutral Economic Stability Integrity and Corruption

8 Legal System Financial Factors (30%) C Factor: Profitability A Weakening PPP % Avg RWA 5.28% Net Income % Avg RWA 3.60% Factor: Liquidity D- Neutral (Mkt funds-liquid Assets) % Total Assets 39.61% Liquidity Management Factor: Capital Adequacy A Neutral Tier 1 ratio (%) 12.33% Tangible Common Equity % RWA 12.33% Factor: Efficiency A Neutral Cost/income ratio 40.17% Factor: Asset Quality C Weakening Problem Loans % Gross Loans 3.78% Problem Loans % (Equity + LLR) 28.46% Lowest Combined Score (9%) D- Economic Insolvency Override Neutral Aggregate Score D Assigned BFSR D [1] - Where dashes are shown for a particular factor (or sub-factor), the score is based on non public information [2] - A blank score under Earnings diversification or Corporate Governance indicates the risk is neutral Copyright 2008, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and/or its licensors including Moody's Assurance Company, Inc. (together, "MOODY'S"). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ARE MIS'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES. MIS 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. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS ARE NOT RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MIS ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY 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. 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, such information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind and MOODY'S, in particular, makes no representation or warranty, epress or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose of any such information. Under no circumstances shall MOODY'S have any liability to any person or entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by, resulting from, or relating to, any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees or agents in connection with the procurement, collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, communication, publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation, lost profits), even if MOODY'S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, resulting from the use of or inability to use, any such information. The credit ratings and financial reporting analysis observations, if any, constituting part of the information contained herein are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Each rating or other opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on behalf of any user of the information contained herein, and each such user must accordingly make its own study and evaluation of each security and of each issuer and guarantor of, and each provider of credit support for, each security that it may consider purchasing, holding or selling. MOODY'S 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 have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MOODY'S for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approimately $2,400,000. Moody's Corporation (MCO) and its wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary, Moody's Investors Service (MIS), also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS's ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may eist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to

9 the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually on Moody's website at under the heading "Shareholder Relations - Corporate Governance - Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy."