Overview
Pennsylvania counties and municipalities are generally well positioned to manage economic headwinds that include inflationary pressures, rising interest rates, and an expected shallow recession in 2023. (For more information on S&P Global Ratings' economic forecast, see "Economic Outlook U.S. Q1 2023: Tipping Toward Recession," published Nov. 28, 2022, on RatingsDirect.) Local governments across the commonwealth are emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic, having benefited from modest revenue recovery and federal stimulus funding that have bolstered reserves. S&P Global Ratings expects that healthy reserves and proactive budgetary management will allow Pennsylvania local governments to weather a potential economic downturn and preserve credit quality across the portfolio.
S&P Global Ratings maintains ratings on 245 municipalities and 39 counties. Overall, the credit quality of municipalities and counties in the commonwealth remains stable, with 3.9% experiencing rating changes in calendar 2022. Over that span, three municipalities and three counties had upgrades on general obligation bonds, and five municipalities had downgrades. Currently, 94.4% of the ratings have a stable outlook, 3.9% have a negative outlook, and 1.7% have a positive outlook.
Credit Fundamentals
Potential Challenges
- Most funding for counties and municipalities comes from local revenue sources, predominantly property taxes
- Counties somewhat rely on the state for revenue, although the state is not often a significant revenue source for the general fund
- Many municipalities rely on local enabling taxes such as earned income taxes (EIT), and in some cases EIT is the largest revenue source
- Reserves for counties and municipalities tend to be strong, with a statewide median of more than 40% of expenditures
- Fixed costs such as debt, pension, and other postemployment benefits payments are moderate and manageable for most counties and municipalities
- Most counties and municipalities are cautious about raising property taxes often because of the high millage rate that school districts levy
- Approximately one-third of the municipalities we rate have low-to-adequate market values, which limits tax-raising flexibility
- Municipalities often depend on economically sensitive revenue such as EIT and local services taxes
- Political gridlock in Harrisburg has sometimes resulted in prolonged budget impasses, adversely affecting counties' revenue from the state
What We're Watching
Most governments in Pennsylvania are well positioned to face economic headwinds
Economic recovery from the pandemic has helped sustain property wealth and income levels across the commonwealth, and has stabilized local revenue for municipalities and counties. The commonwealth has a diverse economic landscape, with wealthier and higher-rated credits typically concentrated in the large metro regions, and with smaller cities and rural areas, which tend to be weaker economically and lower-rated, interspersed throughout the rest of commonwealth. A shallow recession in 2023 could disrupt this period of economic recovery, though we expect larger, more economically diverse areas of the commonwealth will remain fairly stable. In our view, local governments with more limited economies could experience more credit pressure.
Modest revenue growth and federal stimulus funding have helped Pennsylvania local governments remain fiscally stable, with about 70% of the rated universe reporting positive general fund operating results in the most recent audited year (which, for most, is fiscal 2021). That said, a spend-down of federal funding, coinciding with macroeconomic stress, could lead to some fiscal pressure in the next few years. Therefore, we expect management teams to make budget adjustments to maintain fiscal stability and healthy reserves.
Debt and pension liabilities remain manageable for most Pennsylvania counties and municipalities. In addition to American Rescue Plan Act funding, money from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act should help local governments address a portion of their capital and infrastructure needs. However, aging infrastructure across the commonwealth will still likely lead to higher debt loads over the longer term. Furthermore, rising interest rates will also likely consume a greater proportion of local governments' budgets.
Most local governments administer single-employer uniform and non-uniform pension plans. Funded status varies by municipality but most plans are fairly well funded, so pension costs are not a stress for most local governments, though we expect market losses in 2022 will likely weaken funded ratios. Poorly funded pensions are a pressure for some local governments, and we believe that weaker demographic trends could exacerbate this. A prime example is the City of Chester (unrated), which recently filed for bankruptcy, partly as a result of a severely underfunded pension system. For more information on Pennsylvania pensions, see "Pension Spotlight: Pennsylvania," published July 19, 2022.
Infrequent real estate assessments are a factor in tax-raising limitations
Pennsylvania does not have a formal, statewide property tax assessment process, leaving counties to reassess their property as they see fit. This has resulted in some counties going more than 30 years since their latest reassessment, which in turn is a contributing factor to lower market and assessed values, which can then limit tax-raising abilities.
Infrequent assessments are one of several factors that might limit a local government's revenue raising ability. For example, most local governments are also subject to state-imposed property tax rate maximums, although most counties and municipalities are well below the cap. And for many local governments, the local school district also relies on property taxes to fund education and usually levies a higher millage rate, resulting in municipalities cautiously approaching raising property taxes. Furthermore, most municipalities that levy the EIT are at the legal maximum, further limiting revenue flexibility. Therefore, management of property tax rates and control of expenditures will continue to be important factors in maintaining short- and long-term financial stability for counties and municipalities across the commonwealth.
Spotlight On Environment, Social, And Governance Credit Factors
We view Pennsylvania local governments' physical risks as neutral, but we believe some counties and municipalities face some increased exposure from inland flooding hazards. In our opinion, most local governments' exposure to social capital risks is also neutral, but in some cases it could be a negative credit factor for those with rapidly aging and declining populations. While most individual counties and municipalities' governance structure is neutral, prolonged budget impasses have sometimes adversely affected counties' revenue from the state, most recently in fiscal 2016. However, the change in the state's leadership, including a split legislature, may lead to a return of this risk. On the other hand, Pennsylvania has positive governance structure aspects, including the Municipalities Financial Recovery Act, which the Department of Community and Economic Development oversees, providing state fiscal oversight for counties and municipalities. Finally, the commonwealth allows for municipalities to declare bankruptcy, and while such an occurrence is uncommon, we will monitor any filings in Pennsylvania, including Chester, because of the potential impact on other issuers.
Table 1
Pennsylvania Counties: Medians | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating | ||||||||||||||||
AAA | AA+ | AA | AA- | A+ | A | A- | ||||||||||
Projected per capita EBI (%) | 135 | 117 | 92 | 108 | 76 | 76 | 80 | |||||||||
Market value per capita ($) | 150,079 | 83,590 | 72,685 | 81,818 | 48,315 | 46,934 | 55,563 | |||||||||
Available general fund (%) | 48 | 41 | 39 | 12 | 41 | 17 | 24 | |||||||||
General fund performance (%) | (0.2) | 1.5 | 1.5 | 4.1 | 7.0 | 8.7 | 4.8 | |||||||||
Cash and expense (%) | 39 | 30 | 27 | 25 | 46 | 38 | 40 | |||||||||
Carrying charge (%) | 6.8 | 3.4 | 3.9 | 2.6 | 6.0 | 4.3 | 6.5 | |||||||||
Pension ARC + OPEB as % expense | 1.7 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 3.3 | |||||||||
ARC--Annual required contribution. EBI--Effective buying income. OPEB--Other postemployment benefits. |
Table 2
Pennsylvania Municipalities: Medians | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating | ||||||||||||||||||
AAA | AA+ | AA | AA- | A+ | A | A- | BBB+ or lower | |||||||||||
Projected per capita EBI (%) | 178 | 167 | 122 | 98 | 85 | 81 | 76 | 68 | ||||||||||
Market value per capita ($) | 154,505 | 133,001 | 89,880 | 70,392 | 50,655 | 42,058 | 35,956 | 31,558 | ||||||||||
Available general fund (%) | 62 | 54 | 45 | 55 | 53 | 41 | 47 | 15 | ||||||||||
General fund performance (%) | 6.9 | 7.8 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 8.6 | 4.6 | 10.6 | (1.2) | ||||||||||
Cash and expense (%) | 113 | 152 | 90 | 93 | 101 | 75 | 75 | 28 | ||||||||||
Carrying charge (%) | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 5.9 | 7.4 | 6.3 | 7.5 | 12.3 | ||||||||||
Pension ARC + OPEB as % expense | 5.6 | 3.2 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 6.4 | 7.5 | 10.6 | 6.1 | ||||||||||
ARC--Annual required contribution. EBI--Effective buying income. OPEB--Other postemployment benefits. |
Chart 1
Chart 2
Table 3
Pennsylvania Counties: Financial Management Assessment | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating | |||||||
AAA | AA+ | AA | AA- | A+ | A | A- | |
Score (%) | |||||||
Strong | 67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Good | 33 | 100 | 38 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Standard | 0 | 0 | 63 | 67 | 100 | 100 | 86 |
Vulnerable | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 |
Table 4
Pennsylvania Municipalities: Financial Management Assessment | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating | ||||||||
AAA | AA+ | AA | AA- | A+ | A | A- | BBB+ or lower | |
Score (%) | ||||||||
Strong | 25 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Good | 25 | 43 | 30 | 11 | 11 | 7 | 33 | 0 |
Standard | 50 | 57 | 70 | 85 | 89 | 79 | 17 | 27 |
Vulnerable | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 50 | 73 |
Table 5
Pennsylvania Municipalities--Ratings List | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This list was prepared by individuals on behalf of the USPF Group of S&P Global Ratings and is current as of Feb. 3, 2023. For the most up-to-date, accurate, and complete information on any credit ratings referenced in this list, please visit www.standardandpoors.com. | ||||||
As of Feb. 3, 2023 | ||||||
Entity | Rating | Outlook | ||||
Albion Borough | A | Stable | ||||
Allegheny Township (Westmoreland County) | AA- | Stable | ||||
Allentown | A | Stable | ||||
Altoona | A | Stable | ||||
Ambler Boro | AA | Stable | ||||
Ambridge Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Aston Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Baden Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Baldwin Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Beaver Falls | BB+ | Positive | ||||
Bell Acres Boro | AA | Stable | ||||
Bethel Pk Municipality | AA | Stable | ||||
Bethlehem | AA- | Stable | ||||
Blair Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Bonneauville Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Borough of East Pittsburgh | A | Stable | ||||
Brackenridge Boro | BBB | Stable | ||||
Brentwood Borough | AA- | Stable | ||||
Brookhaven Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Buckingham Twp (Bucks Cnty) | AAA | Stable | ||||
Butler | B | Stable | ||||
Caln Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Carnegie Boro | A- | Stable | ||||
Castle Shannon Boro | A+ | Negative | ||||
Catasauqua Boro | BB+ | Negative | ||||
Center Twp (Beaver Cnty) | A+ | Stable | ||||
Charlestown Twp | AA- | Negative | ||||
Chartiers Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Collier Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Columbia Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Conemaugh Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Coolspring Township | AA | Stable | ||||
Coraopolis Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Crafton Borough | AA- | Stable | ||||
Cumru Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Derry Twp (Dauphin Cnty) | AA | Stable | ||||
Derry Twp (Westmoreland Cnty) | A- | Stable | ||||
Dover Twp (York Cnty) | AA- | Stable | ||||
Dunmore Boro | BBB+ | Stable | ||||
East Bradford Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
East Marlborough Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
East Pennsboro Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
East Vincent Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Easton | A | Stable | ||||
Easttown Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Elizabethtown Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Emmaus Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Ephrata Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Erie | A | Stable | ||||
Etna Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Evans City | A | Stable | ||||
Exeter Twp (Berks Cnty) | AA- | Stable | ||||
Findlay Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Forest Hills Borough | AA | Stable | ||||
Fox Chapel | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Franconia Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Franklin Pk Boro | AA | Stable | ||||
Franklin Twp (Greene Cnty) | AA- | Stable | ||||
Gettysburg | A+ | Stable | ||||
Glenolden Boro | A+ | Negative | ||||
Granville Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Green Tree Boro | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Greensburg | AA | Stable | ||||
Greenville Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Hamburg Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Hampden Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Hampton Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Hanover Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Harmony Twp | A | Stable | ||||
Hazle Twp | A | Stable | ||||
Heidelberg Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Hermitage | AA- | Stable | ||||
Highspire Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Honey Brook Township | AA- | Stable | ||||
Hopewell Twp (Beaver Cnty) | AA | Stable | ||||
Hummelstown Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Huntingdon Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Indiana Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Jackson Twp (Mercer Cnty) | A | Stable | ||||
Jackson Twp (York Cnty) | AA- | Stable | ||||
Kennett Square Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Kingston | AA- | Stable | ||||
Lansdale Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Latrobe | AA- | Stable | ||||
Lebanon | A+ | Stable | ||||
Leetsdale Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Lewistown Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Lititz Boro | AA | Stable | ||||
Littlestown Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
London Grove Township | AA | Stable | ||||
Lower Burrell | A+ | Stable | ||||
Lower Heidelberg Twp | AA- | Positive | ||||
Lower Merion Twp | AAA | Stable | ||||
Lower Moreland Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Lower Oxford Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Lower Pottsgrove Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Lower Southampton | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Lower Swatara Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Manheim Borough | AA- | Stable | ||||
Manheim Twp | AAA | Stable | ||||
Marple Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Mckees Rocks Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Meadville | A+ | Stable | ||||
Mechanicsburg Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Menallen Twp | A | Stable | ||||
Mercer Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Middle Smithfield Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Middletown Twp (Delaware Cnty) | AA | Stable | ||||
Milford Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Monaca Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Monroe Twp (Cumberland Cnty) | AA | Stable | ||||
Montgomery Twp | AAA | Stable | ||||
Moon Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Mount Joy Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Muhlenberg Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Munhall Borough | A | Negative | ||||
Murrysville | AA+ | Stable | ||||
New Castle | A- | Stable | ||||
New Wilmington Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Newberry Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Norristown | A+ | Stable | ||||
North Coventry Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
North Fayette Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
North Franklin Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
North Londonderry Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
North Sewickley Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
North Strabane Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
North Versailles Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Oakmont Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Ohio Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Ontelaunee Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Orwigsburg Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Palmer Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Palmyra Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Pen Argyl Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Penn Hills Municipality | A+ | Stable | ||||
Penn Twp (York Cnty) | AA- | Stable | ||||
Peters Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Philadelphia | A | Stable | ||||
Phoenixville Boro | AA | Stable | ||||
Pitcairn Boro | A- | Stable | ||||
Pittsburgh | AA- | Stable | ||||
Pleasant Hills Auth | A+ | Stable | ||||
Pleasant Hills Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Plum Boro | AA | Stable | ||||
Plumstead Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Pottstown Boro | AA | Stable | ||||
Pottsville | A+ | Stable | ||||
Quincy Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Reading | A- | Stable | ||||
Richland Boro | A- | Stable | ||||
Richland Twp (Allegheny Cnty) | AA | Stable | ||||
Richland Twp (Bucks Cnty) | AA | Stable | ||||
Ridley Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Roaring Spring Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Robinson Twp (Allegheny Cnty) | AA | Stable | ||||
Rochester (Boro of) | A | Stable | ||||
Rochester Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Ross Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Rostraver Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Sandycreek Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Schuylkill Haven Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Scott Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Scott Twp (Lackawanna Cnty) | A+ | Stable | ||||
Scranton | BB+ | Positive | ||||
Sewickley Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Sharon | A | Stable | ||||
Smithfield Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
South Fayette Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
South Park Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
South Strabane Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
South Williamsport Borough | AA- | Stable | ||||
Spring Grove Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Springdale Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Springettsbury Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Springfield Twp (Bucks Cnty) | AA | Stable | ||||
St Marys | A+ | Stable | ||||
St Thomas Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
State College Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Stockertown Borough | A+ | Stable | ||||
Stowe Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Strasburg Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Susquehanna Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Swatara Twp (Dauphin Cnty) | AA- | Stable | ||||
Tamaqua Boro | BBB+ | Stable | ||||
Tarentum Boro | BBB- | Stable | ||||
Township of Towamencin | AA | Stable | ||||
Trafford Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Unity Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Upper Allen Township | AA | Stable | ||||
Upper Chichester Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Upper Darby Twp | A | Negative | ||||
Upper Providence Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Upper St Clair Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Walnutport Boro | BBB | Stable | ||||
Warminster Twp | A | Stable | ||||
Washington | BBB+ | Stable | ||||
Washington Township (Westmoreland County) | A | Stable | ||||
West Chester Boro | AA- | Negative | ||||
West Cocalico Township | AA | Stable | ||||
West Earl Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
West Goshen Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
West Mifflin Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
West Pikeland Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
West Reading Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
West View Boro | A+ | Stable | ||||
Western Westmoreland Mun Auth | AA- | Stable | ||||
White Oak Boro | AA- | Stable | ||||
Whitehall Twp | AA | Stable | ||||
Wilkes-Barre | BBB- | Stable | ||||
Wilkes-Barre Twp | AA- | Stable | ||||
Wilkinsburg Boro | A | Stable | ||||
Worcester Twp | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Wysox Twp | A+ | Stable | ||||
Yardley Boro | AA | Stable | ||||
Youngwood Borough | A+ | Stable | ||||
Zelienople Boro | A | Stable |
Table 6
Pennsylvania Counties--Ratings List | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This list was prepared by individuals on behalf of the USPF Group of S&P Global Ratings and is current as of Feb. 3, 2023. For the most up-to-date, accurate, and complete information on any credit ratings referenced in this list, please visit www.standardandpoors.com. | ||||||
As of Feb. 3, 2023 | ||||||
Entity | Rating | Outlook | ||||
Allegheny Cnty | AA- | Stable | ||||
Armstrong Cnty | A+ | Stable | ||||
Beaver Cnty | A- | Positive | ||||
Bucks County | AAA | Stable | ||||
Butler Cnty | AA- | Stable | ||||
Cambria Cnty | A- | Positive | ||||
Carbon Cnty | AA | Stable | ||||
Centre Cnty | AA | Stable | ||||
Chester Cnty | AAA | Stable | ||||
Clinton Cnty | A+ | Stable | ||||
Columbia Cnty | A- | Stable | ||||
Cumberland Cnty | AAA | Stable | ||||
Dauphin Cnty | AA | Stable | ||||
Delaware Cnty | AA+ | Stable | ||||
Erie Cnty | AA | Stable | ||||
Fayette Cnty | A- | Stable | ||||
Franklin Cnty | AA | Stable | ||||
Greene Cnty | A | Negative | ||||
Indiana Cnty | A | Stable | ||||
Jefferson Cnty | A+ | Stable | ||||
Lackawanna Cnty | A- | Negative | ||||
Lawrence Cnty | A- | Stable | ||||
Luzerne Cnty | A- | Stable | ||||
Lycoming Cnty | A+ | Stable | ||||
McKean Cnty | A | Stable | ||||
Mercer Cnty | A+ | Stable | ||||
Mifflin Cnty | A+ | Stable | ||||
Northampton Cnty | AA | Stable | ||||
Northumberland Cnty | A | Stable | ||||
Pike Cnty | AA- | Stable | ||||
Washington Cnty | AA | Stable | ||||
Wayne Cnty | A | Stable | ||||
York Cnty | AA | Stable |
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analyst: | Benjamin D Gallovic, Chicago + 1 (312) 233 7070; benjamin.gallovic@spglobal.com |
Secondary Contact: | Bobby E Otter, Toronto 1-647-480-3517; robert.otter@spglobal.com |
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 well 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 IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH 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 sell 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. Rating-related 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 acknowledgement 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 well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered 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 nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain 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.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.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.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.