Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach

Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach SALGA Municipal Innovative Infrastructure Financing Conference JUNE, 2018

Agenda 1. Moody s Sub-Sovereign Group 2. List of rated RLGs in South Africa 3. List of Metros and secondary cities 4. Moody s RLGs Rating Approach Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 3

Moody s Sub-Sovereign Group

Sub-Sovereign A global presence 49 analysts/associates located in 17 offices, serving 44 countries 16 different nationalities speaking 17+ languages USD 1.51 trillion rated debt Mexico City Toronto New York Stockholm Moscow London Paris Prague Madrid Frankfurt Milan Beijing Tokyo Shanghai Sao Paulo Buenos Aires Johannesburg Sydney Sources: CSS data, AWT, Moody s Database Rated debt (excluding US) Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 5

Rating Universe: A Wide Array of Public Entities Two big families: 337 RLGs, 162 GRIs 337 RLGs Regions Provinces States Cities 162 GRIs Transportation Higher Education Water Housing Association Utilities Healthcare Specialized Lenders Financial Institutions Not for Profit Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 6

RLG Ratings Universe by Geography Credits spread over 44 countries Africa Australia and Asia South America Western Europe» Strong presence in Canada and Mexico, W.Europe & CEE/CIS» Issuer ratings dominant vs. debt ratings, capital mkt activity limited in many countries» National Scale Ratings widely used in Mexico, CEE/CIS, South Africa and Turkey North America» Africa coverage is limited to South Africa Eastern Europe Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 7

List of rated RLGs in South Africa

South African Rated Sub-Sovereigns (as at March 2018) METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES Notes: [1] Issuer and debt ratings. Outlook Global Scale National Scale Rating City of Cape Town Negative Baa3/P-3 Aaa.za/P1-za [1] Ekurhuleni Metro Stable Baa3/P-3 Aaa.za/P-1.za [1] Johannesburg Stable Baa3/P-3 Aa1.za/P-1.za [1] Nelson Mandela Metro Stable Baa3 Aaa.za City of Tshwane Stable Ba2/NP A1.za/ P-1.za Mangaung Stable Ba2/NP A1.za/P-1.za LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES Rustenburg Stable Ba2 A1.za Bergrivier Stable Ba3/NP Baa1.za/P-2.za Breede Valley Stable Ba2/NP A2.za/P-1.za City of Umhlathuze Stable Ba2 A1.za DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES Amathole District Stable Ba1 A2.za GOVERNMENT RELATED ISSUERS (GRI S) City Power Johannesburg Stable Baa3 Aa1.za East Rand Water Care Company (ERWAT) Stable Ba1 Aa3.za South African National Roads (SANRAL) Ratings Under Review Ba1/NP Aa3.za/P-1.za Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 9

List of Metros and Secondary Cities

Metropolitan municipalities have large revenue base Metropolitan Municipalities Province Total Revenue - 2017 (ZAR million) Total Revenue - 2017 ($ million) Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality Easter Cape 6,276 483 City of Cape Town Western Cape 38,404 2,954 City of Ekurhuleni Gauteng 31,457 2,420 City of Johannesburg Gauteng 45,422 3,494 City of Tshwane Gauteng 30,401 2,339 Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality Kwazulu Natal 33,539 2,580 Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality Free State 5,767 444 Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality Easter Cape 9,802 754 Source: National Treasury & issuers financials Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 11

Metros population growth rate from 2011 2016 continue to exert spending pressure FREE STATE: Mangaung 2% GAUTENG: Ekurhuleni 6% Johannesburg 12% Tshwane 12% KWAZULU NATAL: ethekwini 6% WESTERN CAPE: Cape Town 7% EASTERN CAPE: Buffalo City 7% Nelson Mandela Bay 10% Source: Statistics South Africa Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 12

Secondary cities largely depend on transfers for capital infrastructure Secondary cities Province Total revenue - 2017 (ZAR million) Total revenue- 2017 ($ million) Emfuleni Gauteng 5,584 429 Msunduzi Kwazulu Natal 4,576 352 Rustenburg North West 4,277 329 Polokwane Limpopo 3,114 240 umhlathuze Kwazulu Natal 3,007 231 Mogale City Gauteng 2,585 199 Mbombela Mpumalanga 2,587 199 Emalahleni Mpumalanga 2,470 190 Matlosana North West 2,402 185 Matjhabeng Free State 2,254 173 Sol Plaatje Northern Cape 1,905 147 Madibeng North West 1,879 145 Drakenstein Western Cape 1,883 145 Newcastle Kwazulu Natal 1,750 135 Govan Mbeki Mpumalanga 1,665 128 George Western Cape 1,643 126 Steve Tshwete Mpumalanga 1,449 111 Stellenbosch Western Cape 1,519 117 Tlokwe North West (2016 AFS) 1,270 98 Source: National Treasury, issuers financials Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 13

Population growth rate from 2011 2016 also exert spending pressure for secondary cities NORTH-WEST: Rustenburg 14% Matlosana 5% Tlokwe 10% Madibeng 12% NORTHERN CAPE: Sol Plaatje 3% WESTERN CAPE: Drakenstein 12% George 7% Stellenbosch 11% FREE STATE: Matjhabeng 6% LIMPOPO: Polokwane 12% GAUTENG: Emfuleni 2% Mogale City 6% MPUMALANGA: Mbombela 6% Emalahleni 15% Govan Mbeki 15% Steve Tshwete 21% KWAZULU NATAL: Msunduzi 10% umhlathuze 11% Newcastle 7% Source: Statistics South Africa Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 14

Moody s RLGs Rating Approach

RLGs: The Approach 1 RLGs are enduringly linked to their respective sovereign. The sovereign s credit quality will to some extent anchor the credit quality of the RLG 2 Sovereign and Sub-Sovereigns are likely to be affected by similar external factors. Sub-Sovereigns do not posses special autonomous characteristics that insulate them from sovereign-related risks 3 Sub-sovereign issuers tend to be highly exposed to the same macroeconomic and financial sectors pressures which affect the central government. Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 16

How sovereign credit quality affects other ratings Slower economy Slowing or contracting economic activity can have wide-ranging consequences Financing costs Liquidity constraints and higher financing costs resulting from diminished investor confidence Regulation Government interference or changes in regulation Austerity measures Defensive sovereign actions may include austerity measures which reduce or delay government payments Exchange and interest rates Unfavourable changes to exchange rates, interest rates or price levels Political uncertainty Increased risk of political uncertainty and civil or labour unrest Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 17

Rating Approach: BCA and Extraordinary Support F1. Economic Fundamentals F2. Institutional Framework F3. Financial performance & Debt profile F4. Governance & Management Operating Environment (typically reflected in Sovereign bond rating) Extraordinary Support Range Assessment of idiosyncratic risk Assessment of systemic risk Baseline Credit Assessment RLG Rating Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 18

Assessing Idiosyncratic Risk Economic Strength Institutional Strength Financial performance & Debt profile Governance & Management Idiosyncratic Risk Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 19

Assessing Idiosyncratic Risk Economic Strength Institutional Strength Financial performance & Debt profile Governance & Management Why it matters An RLG's ability to service its debt depends on, among other factors, the sufficiency and reliability of its future revenues. Relative economic performance will likely impact an RLG s ability to generate own-source revenues and its dependence on fiscal transfers. In general, a relatively wealthier region would have a more productive tax base and could therefore generate necessary own-source revenues more readily. How it s measured in the scorecard» Regional GDP per capita as a percentage of national GDP per capita» Economic volatility is assessed by evaluating an RLG s economic diversity Idiosyncratic Risk Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 20

Assessing Idiosyncratic Risk Economic Strength Institutional Strength Financial performance & Debt profile Governance & Management Why it matters The institutional framework encompasses the arrangements that determine intergovernmental relations and shape RLG powers and responsibilities. This factor addresses the RLG's publicpolicy responsibilities and the adequacy of its fiscal powers to meet them. It also addresses the way in which these responsibilities and powers may be altered, whether by a higher tier entity or by the RLG itself. How it s measured in the scorecard» We gauge predictability, stability and responsiveness by assessing whether and how RLG powers and responsibilities may be altered in response to changing circumstances.» We gauge financial flexibility by evaluating own-source revenue flexibility and the RLG sector's spending flexibility Idiosyncratic Risk Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 21

Assessing Idiosyncratic Risk Economic Strength Institutional Strength Financial performance & Debt profile Governance & Management Why it matters Financial performance is the product of accumulated decisions of policy makers regarding an RLG s revenue structure and expenditure base, as well as the economic environment in which the government operates. The government's debt profile includes the amount of debt, the burden it poses, its structure and composition, as well as past trends and future borrowing needs all important determinants of credit quality. How it s measured in the scorecard» Ratio of gross operating balance to operating revenue» Ratio of interest payments to operating revenue» Cash and liquidity management» Debt burden» Debt structure Idiosyncratic Risk Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 22

Assessing Idiosyncratic Risk Economic Strength Institutional Strength Financial performance & Debt profile Governance & Management Why it matters Our assessment of a government's credit standing includes an assessment of the quality of financial decision-making and execution with a review of the government structure, financial management practices and the transparency of financial disclosures. How it s measured in the scorecard We evaluate each RLG s:» Risk controls and financial management practices.» Investment and debt management policies and practices» Transparency and disclosure practices Idiosyncratic Risk Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 23

Assessing Extraordinary Support Baseline Credit Assessment Extraordinary Support Extraordinary support is defined as the likelihood that a higher-tier government would aid an RLG in the event that it faced acute liquidity stress or act in such as way as to help avoid a default of its debt obligations. Support could take different forms, for example, a one-time cash infusion or any action facilitating negotiations with lenders that enhances access to interim financing for the RLG. RLG Rating Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 24

Introduction of Ranges for Support» Consistent with the support ranges for government-related issuers, we have refined our support classifications into five ranges: low (0% - 30%), moderate (31% - 50%), strong (51% - 70%), high (71% - 90%) and very high (91% - 100%).» To arrive at a decision concerning the degree of support, we consider factors within three main areas: Institutional framework; Historical behaviour; and Individual characteristics. Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 25

Summary Idiosyncratic Risk Scorecard and Weights Scorecard Sub-factor weighting Factor weighting 1. Economic fundamentals 20% 1.1 Economic strength 70% 1.2 Economic volatility 30% 2. Institutional framework 20% 2.1 Legislative background 50% 2.2 Financial flexibility 50% 3. Financial performance and debt profile 30% 3.1 Operating margin 12.5% 3.2 Interest burden 12.5% 3.3 Liquidity 25% 3.4 Debt burden 25% 3.5. Debt structure 25% 4. Governance and management MAX 30% 4.1 Risk controls and financial management 4.2 Investment and debt management 4.3 Transparency and disclosure Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 26

Rating process: in five steps to the first time rating 1. Informal talk with Moody s 2. Formalisation of the rating mandate Moody s provides agenda and information requirements for face-to-face meeting 3. Formal rating meeting with Moody s 5. Issuer notification on assigned rating and potential publication 4. Analysis and rating decision on the basis of the committee vote Feedback in advance of the Rating Committee Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 27

Daniel Mazibuko Associate Lead Analyst +271.1217.5481 daniel.mazibuko@moodys.com Sebastien Hay Senior Vice President / Manager +349.1768.8222 sebastien.hay@moodys.com Mauro Crisafulli Associate Managing Director +3902.9148.1105 mauro.crisafulli@moodys.com moodys.com

This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history. 2018 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. 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 SUCH 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 appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. 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. It would be reckless and inappropriate for retail investors to use MOODY S credit ratings or publications when making an investment decision. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser. 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 appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY200,000 to approximately JPY350,000,000. MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements. Regional and Local Governments (RLGs) Moody s Approach, June 2018 29