US Local Government GO Debt Methodology

Similar documents
Agenda. New Mexico School District Bond Ratings 9/8/17

Moody s Muni Bond Rating Criteria & KS Local Government Trends

City of Oakland, CA. Update to Credit Analysis. CREDIT OPINION 19 April Summary

OECD Workshop on Data Collection

State Outlook: Debt Affordability. NCSL Conference Gail Sussman, Managing Director

Policy for Designating and Assigning Unsolicited Credit Ratings

Moody s Methodologies & Florida Update

Moody s Local Government Ratings PASBO Vanessa Youngs, Analyst, Moody s Investors Service

Policy for Designating and Assigning Unsolicited Credit Ratings in the European Union

Rating Action: Moody's Upgrades the City of Sacramento, CA's Lease Revenue Bonds to A1; Confirms Ser and Ser. 1993A at A2; outlook is stable

Findlay City School District, OH

Regional Economic Outlook

Policy on the "SEC Rule 17g-7 of Representation and Warranties" (R&Ws)

Snohomish County Public Utility District 1

Rating Action: Moody's assigns Aa3 to West Virginia SBA's $44.4M Capital Improvement Ref. Rev. Bonds, Ser Global Credit Research - 08 Sep 2017

Mongolian Banking System

Butler (Village of), WI

Findlay City School District, OH

Socorro Independent School District, TX

Township of Tredyffrin, PA

Allen Independent School District, TX

WILTON (TOWN OF) CT. Update to credit analysis. Credit strengths. » Affluent residential tax base. Credit challenges

Roselle Park Borough, NJ

Port Jefferson Union Free School District, NY

Disruption in Higher Education: What Does It Mean For Credit Ratings

City of Tega Cay, SC. Annual Comment on Tega Cay RATING. ISSUER COMMENT 23 March 2018

Masconomet Regional School District, MA

Volusia County School District (FL)

Weber School District, UT

Rating Action: Moody's assigns Aa2 UND/Aa3 ENH to Roswell ISD (Chaves County), NM's GOULT bonds, Ser Sep 2018

Town of Beekman, NY. Credit Strengths. Solid reserve and liquidity levels. Low debt burden with rapid repayment. Credit Challenges

Celina Independent School District, TX

Town of Easton, MA. Credit Strengths. Manageable long-term liabilities. Credit Challenges. Reliance on reserves to address budget gaps

Township of Nutley, NJ

Bothell (City of) WA

City of Mesquite, TX

Edison (Township of) NJ

Sanger (City of) TX. Credit Strengths. Trend of growing reserve levels. Continued tax base growth. Favorable location 40 miles north of Dallas

Rating Action: Moody's assigns Counterparty Risk Ratings to three Sri Lankan banks 18 Jun 2018

Rating Action: Moody's downgrades Lowe's unsecured ratings to Baa1; P-2 commercial paper rating affirmed 12 Dec 2018

Columbia School District, MO

Newport News (City of) VA

Ag Lending Experience of Living Through the Cycles

Rating Action: Moody's assigns A1 to UConn GO bonds supported by State of Connecticut; outlook stable Global Credit Research - 29 Mar 2018

Rating Action: Moody's assigns Aa3 to Trinity Health Credit Group's (MI) Ser bonds; outlook revised to stable

Rating Action: Moody's downgrades Coty's CFR to Ba3; outlook stable Global Credit Research - 20 Mar 2018

Oakland (City of), CA

Rockwall County, TX. Summary Rating Rationale. Credit Strengths. Above average socioeconomic indices. Credit Challenge

Cocoa (City of) FL. Update to credit analysis following assignment of Aa2 issuer rating. CREDIT OPINION 12 April Summary.

Cherokee County Board of Education, AL

Carroll (County of) MD

Socorro Independent School District, TX

Rating Action: Moody's downgrades South Carolina Public Service Authority revenue bonds; rating outlook negative

Rating Action: Moody's assigns A2 to 2016B & C Senior Bonds of Central Florida Expressway Auth. (CFX), FL; Outlook positive

Bexar County, TX. Exhibit 1 Assessed Valuation Gains Reflect Continued Economic Activity CLIENT SERVICES. Source: Bexar County, TX,

Westport (Town of) CT

Metropolitan Water District of So. California

blend Funding plc Update to credit analysis Credit strengths » Liquidity reserve as structural enhancement Credit challenges

Policy on Conflict of Interest Certification

Montgomery County, TX

Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines

Policy for Analyst Rotation

Park District of La Grange, IL

Rating Action: Moody's affirms Baa3 senior unsecured debt ratings of ICICI Bank's Bahrain branch Global Credit Research - 17 Aug 2017

American Samoa (Territory of)

City of Isle of Palms, SC

Lubbock (City of), TX

Rating Action: Moody's assigns A1 to San Francisco Airport Commission, CA Series 2018B-G; outlook is stable 01 May 2018

West Fargo Public School District No. 6, ND

Global Credit Research - 06 Mar 2018

Newport News, VA. Summary Rating Rationale. Credit Strengths. Strong financial management. Credit Challenges. Below average demographics

Rating Action: Moody's downgrades Suriname's issuer rating to B2 negative; concluding rating review Global Credit Research - 20 Feb 2018

Montgomery County, TX

Pension Risks Growing for US State and Local Governments

St. Mary's County, MD

Underwriting standards for credit cards and auto loans tighten modestly, a positive

Rating Action: Moody's assigns Caa3 Issuer Rating to US Virgin Islands; lowers ratings on four liens of Matching Fund Revenue Bonds

Global Credit Research - 19 Apr 2018

Siauliu Bankas, AB. Siauliu Bankas capital metrics will strengthen with EBRD s debt-to-equity conversion. ISSUER COMMENT 13 August 2018

New Issue: Moody's assigns MIG 1 to Oakland City's (CA) TRAN

Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston

Celina Independent School District, TX

Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines

Rating Action: Moody's reviews Depfa ACS Bank's public sector covered bonds for downgrade Global Credit Research - 14 Sep 2016

Rating Action: Moody's reviews NORD/LB Luxembourg S.A. - Public-Sector Covered Bonds, direction uncertain 19 Dec 2018

Credit Opinion: Federal Home Loan Bank of New York

Dallas County Community College District, TX

Rating Action: Moody's affirms Aa1 issuer and bond ratings of the International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) with a stable outlook

Massachusetts (Commonwealth of)

Estatus del Mercado de Emisiones de Financiamiento de Proyectos e Infraestructura

Rating Action: Moody's downgrades Coty's CFR to B1; outlook negative 26 Nov 2018

Rating Action: Moody's upgrades Kommunalkredit Austria AG's public-sector covered bonds Global Credit Research - 25 Jul 2017

Rating Action: Moody's upgrades mortgage covered bonds issued by AIB Mortgage Bank and EBS Mortgage Finance Global Credit Research - 29 Nov 2016

City of Oak Creek, WI

Somerset Hills School District, NJ

FORO CORFICOLOMBIANA COLOMBIA Perspectiva Económica y Crediticia

Rating Action: Moody's downgrades Bharti's senior unsecured notes to Ba1 and assigns a Ba1 CFR; outlook negative 05 Feb 2019

Rating Action: Moody's changes Hella's outlook to positive; affirms ratings Global Credit Research - 31 Aug 2017

Duquesne University, PA

Huffman Independent School District, TX

Transcription:

US Local Government GO Debt Methodology Alexandra Cimmiyotti, Vice President Senior Analyst February 22, 2018

Agenda 1. Outlook for Local Governments 2. Overview of GO Methodology 3. California Local Governments Relative Pension Burdens US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 2

1 Outlook for Local Governments

Stable Outlook for US Local Governments Outlook period is 12-18 months Stable Outlook Overview» Local government property tax revenue will continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace of 2% - 4%» Growing fund balances will support stable credit quality for local governments» Municipal bankruptcies and defaults will remain the exception, not the rule» Pockets of local governments face intensifying credit pressures US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 4

Property Values Show Strong Growth in CA Per-state median of rated issuers 10-year property value trend (2007-2016) US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 5

Average Operating Fund Balances Increasing for California Cities and Counties» School districts lagged general increasing trend, but increased in 2016» CA city operating fund balance average exceeds national average» CA counties lag national averages though reserves are still at healthy levels 45% Cities (CA) Counties (CA) School District (CA) 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2011 2012 Source: Moody s Investors Service 2013 2014 2015 2016 US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 6

2 Overview of GO Methodology

Updated GO Methodology in 2014 Small revisions but significant increase in transparency» Updated prior methodology to reflect recent trends & key issues, including pensions» Developed quantitative scorecard for rating guidance Purpose and Use of the Scorecard:» Enhances the transparency of our rating process» Scorecard acts as a starting point for a more thorough and individualistic analysis» Assigned rating may be higher or lower than scorecard-indicated rating based on additional factors» Final rating is determined by a rating committee, incorporating all quantitative and qualitative factors relevant to the individual issuer and debt issue US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 8

Overview of GO Scorecard Factors & Sub-Factors Weights Factor 1: Economy/Tax Base 30% Full Value (market value of taxable property) 10% Full Value per Capita 10% Median Family Income 10% Factor 2: Finances 30% Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenue 10% 5-Year Dollar Change in Fund Balance as % of Revenues 5% Cash Balance as % of Revenues 10% 5-Year Dollar Change in Cash Balance as % of Revenues 5% Factor 3: Management 20% Institutional Framework 10% Operating History: 5-Year Average of Operating Revenues / Operating Expenditures 10% Factor 4: Debt/Pensions 20% Net Direct Debt / Full Value 5% Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenue 5% 3-Year Average of Moody s Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Full Value 5% 3-Year Average of Moody s Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Operating Revenues 5% US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 9

GO Scorecard Standard Adjustments Adjustments/Notching Factors Description Economy/Tax Base Institutional presence Regional economic center Economic concentration Outsized unemployment or poverty levels Other analyst adjustment to Economy/Tax Base factor (specify) Finances Outsized contingent liability risk Unusually volatile revenue structure Other analyst adjustment to Finances factor (specify) Management State oversight or support Unusually strong or weak budgetary management and planning Other analyst adjustment to Management factor (specify) Debt/Pensions Unusually strong or weak security features Unusual risk posed by debt/pension structure History of missed debt service payments Other analyst adjustment to Debt/Pensions factor (specify) Other Credit event/trend not yet reflected in existing data sets Direction up up down down up/down down down up/down up/down up/down up/down up/down down down up/down up/down US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 10

Applying the Analytical Factors Grid-Indicated Rating Notching Factors Adjusted Scorecard Rating» The adjusted scorecard rating is typically the assigned, public rating» However:» The final rating assignment is determined by the vote of rating committee members» The assigned public rating may be different from the adjusted, scorecard indicated rating based on this vote US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 11

Upgrades Substantially Outpace Downgrades in California Since Late 2014 120% Upgrades as Percentage of Rating Revisions (California) Downgrades as Percentage of Rating Revisions (California) 100% 23% 14% 15% 25% 7% 6% 6% 5% 25% 20% 4% 80% 45% 60% 53% 42% 41% 60% 40% 77% 86% 85% 75% 93% 94% 94% 95% 75% 80% 96% 20% 55% 40% 47% 58% 59% 0% 1Q14 2Q14 3Q14 4Q14 1Q15 2Q15 3Q15 4Q15 1Q16 2Q16 3Q16 4Q16 1Q17 2Q17 3Q17 4Q17 US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 12

3 California Local Governments Relative Pension Burdens

Rising Pensions Costs Remain a Long-term Risk for the Local Government Sector» Given the exceptionally strong legal protections provided to public pensions, the State of California (Aa3 stable) and its local governments face limited options to address pension challenges» Savings from enacted pension reforms will take years to materialize because they primarily impact new employees» State and local government contributions to public pension systems such as CalPERs and CalSTRS will continue to rise materially for at leas the next several years» State Supreme Court to revisit the California Rule, potentially providing some relief US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 14

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 $ billions Liability Build-Up and Falling Discount Rate Assumptions Are Increasing Pension Costs» California s CalPERS pension contributions $10 $9 $8 State Contributions - Actual Projected Contributions CalPERS Discount Rate (right axis) 9.0% 8.5% $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% $0 6.0% Source: CalPERS actuarial valuations US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 15

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Expected Volatility (7.5% return target) Declines in Reported US Public Pension Discount Rates Lag Market Indicators» Even at new, lower levels, reported discount rates remain well above market interest rates» Callan: volatility risk required to maintain 7.5% return expectations roughly tripled from 1995 to 2015 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% CalPERS Discount Rate 10 Yr. Treasury (Annual) 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Sources: Callan, CalPERS, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1995 2005 2015 US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 16

Favorable FY 2017 Returns Were From Relatively Volatile Asset Classes CalPERS weighted returns Public Equity Private Equity Fixed Income Real Estate Forestland Infrastructure Inflation Liquidity Portfolio Net (11.2%) 13% 11% 9% 7% 5% 3% 1% CalPERS return volatilities 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1-Year Projected Volatility 5-Year Realized Volatility -1% Weighted Sources of Investment Return, CalPERS FYE 6/30/2016 Source: CalPERS US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 17

% of Operating Revenues Nationally, Fixed Costs Exceed 30% of Operating Revenues for the Most Heavily Burdened Large Local Governments 65% 55% 45% 35% 25% 15% 5% -5% Debt Service OPEB Contributions Pension Contributions "Tread Water" Gap Source: Moody s Investors Service US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 18

% of Operating Revenues Some California Local Governments Also Have Very High Fixed Cost Burdens» Ten Moody s-rated California cities and one county have fixed cost burdens greater than 30%» Median fixed cost burden for California cities and counties is 19.5% Debt Service OPEB Contributions Pension Contributions "Tread Water" Gap 55% 45% 35% 25% 15% 5% -5% -15% Source: Moody s Investors Service US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 19

Alexandra Cimmiyotti Vice President Senior Analyst Alexandra.Cimmiyotti@moodys.com 415-274-1754 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. US Local Government GO Debt, February 22, 2018 21