-NFS_mnt-ridf-pdf3-16-ridf_1009862

Publish in

Documents

7 views

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 19
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
nfs
Tags
Transcript
  Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The Rating Action Commentary (RAC) associated with this disclosure form is an integral part of the form.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Prepared pursuant to the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173).Press Release ID: 969442 Page 1 03 Aug 2016 RatingsSymbol, Number, or Score in the Rating Scale used by Fitch as Required by Paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of Rule 17g-7 Each credit rating for which this disclosure form is applicable is listed in the table below. The history of each listed credit rating is available throughthe link in the column entitled Rating Code. For a discussion of Fitch’s rating scales and their modifiers, please see Credit Rating Scales on Fitch’swebsite. Entity/InstrumentRating ActionRating TypeRating Code Greenko Dutch B.V USD 550 mln 8% Notes 1 Aug 2019 ser 144aUpgradeLong Term RatingB+/RR4Greenko Dutch B.V USD 550 mln 8% Notes 1 Aug 2019 ser RegSUpgradeLong Term RatingB+/RR4Greenko Energy HoldingsNew RatingLong Term Issuer Default RatingB+/Stable  Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The Rating Action Commentary (RAC) associated with this disclosure form is an integral part of the form.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Prepared pursuant to the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173).Press Release ID: 969442 Page 2 03 Aug 2016 Procedure/MethodologyVersion of the Procedure or Methodology used to Determine the Credit Rating as Required by Paragraph(a)(1)(ii)(B) of Rule 17g-7 The methodology used to determine each credit rating listed in this disclosure form is presented below with its effective date. Click on a link toview a cited criteria report.Corporate Rating Methodology - Including Short-Term Ratings and Parent and Subsidiary Linkage (eff. 17 Aug 2015)Recovery Ratings and Notching Criteria for Non-Financial Corporate Issuers (eff. 05 Apr 2016)  Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The Rating Action Commentary (RAC) associated with this disclosure form is an integral part of the form.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Prepared pursuant to the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173).Press Release ID: 969442 Page 3 03 Aug 2016 Methodology Assumptions & PrinciplesMain Assumptions and Principles Used to Construct the Rating Methodology used to Determine the Credit Rating as Required byParagraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) of Rule 17g-7 The major principles and assumptions used in developing the methodology by which each credit rating listed in this disclosure form was assignedare discussed below, organized by the criteria cited in the RAC.Corporate Rating Methodology - Including Short-Term Ratings and Parent and Subsidiary Linkage (eff. 17 Aug 2015)PrinciplesThe major principles applied in developing and maintaining the rating methodology for non-financial corporates are:Relative Risk: Our ratings reflect a relative vulnerability to default (for entities) and a relative measure of vulnerability to loss (for instrumentratings). As such, they do not attempt to predict a cardinal default rate for a given rating level.Asymmetric Risk: The credit risk we address is asymmetric. Creditors face limited or no upside on stronger performance by a rated entity, with thepossibility of full losses if the entity’s performance weakens to the point of default.Weakest Link: While we review the key rating factors for all rated entities, and mitigants for particular risks may be present in part or in wholefrom other features of the entity’s profile, our methodology reflects a bias towards a ‘weakest link’ approach in the consideration of how key ratingfactors blend to inform the final rating. This bias is stronger for financial factors than for business factors, given that vulnerability to default isprimarily a financial risk.Blend of Financial and Business Risk: Notwithstanding the above, our methodology gives due consideration to the business risks that create andsupport the financial performance of the rated entity.Forward-Looking: Our methodology looks at the future performance of the rated entity. Historical and current performance are used to help Fitchconstruct and maintain forecasts and anticipate corporate developments.AssumptionsThe major assumptions underlying the key rating factors are:Industry risk: Our methodology assumes that, typically, industries that are in decline, highly competitive, cyclical or volatile are inherently riskierthan stable industries with few competitors, high barriers to entry and predictable demand levels.Operating Environment: Our methodology assumes that, typically, companies operating in a limited range of geographies, and/or in geographiesexhibiting higher levels of economic, legal or political risk will be riskier than companies operating in a broad range of geographies, and/or ingeographies with limited economic, legal or political risks.Company Profile: Our methodology assumes that, typically, companies with weaker positions in their key markets (in terms of geography andproduct), a limited ability to influence price and high customer churn, with concentrated customer and/or supply bases, and higher comparativecost positions will be riskier than companies with stronger positions in their key markets (in terms of geography and product), a stronger ability toinfluence price or maintain lengthy client relationships, with diversified customer and supply bases, and lower comparative cost positionsManagement Strategy/Governance: Our methodology assumes that, typically, companies which have a poor or limited track record in executing onsuccessful strategies, which are opportunistic in their investment approach, and/or which have a bias in their funding strategy towards debt rather  Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The Rating Action Commentary (RAC) associated with this disclosure form is an integral part of the form.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Prepared pursuant to the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173).Press Release ID: 969442 Page 4 03 Aug 2016 than equity or internally-generated funds are riskier than companies which have a strong track record in executing on successful strategies, whichare measured in their investment approach, and/or which have a bias in their funding strategy towards equity or internally-generated funds ratherthan debt.- Group Structure: Our methodology assumes that, typically, a company which is owned by an entity with lower creditworthiness, which iscontractually or structurally subordinated from the source of cash flow generation, or which faces other limitations in its access to cash and externalsupport (eg through covenants) is riskier than a company which is owned or formally supported by an entity with higher creditworthiness, which iscontractually or structurally closer to the source of cash flow generation, or which faces easier access to external support (eg formal guarantees).- Cash Flow and Earnings: Our methodology assumes that cash flow is a superior measure of income generation to accrual-based earnings measures.Our methodology assumes that, typically, a company which generates lower levels of sustainable cash flow, including higher levels of non-operatingor other one-off cash flow, or cash flows that are susceptible to volatility through (for example) demand cyclicality, changes in input prices, changesin exchange rates, product obsolescence or development cycles or an aggressive competitive environment in other regards are riskier than companieswhich generate high levels of sustainable cash flow from operating sources, or cash flows that are stable under a wide range of adverse circumstances.- Capital Structure: Our methodology assumes that, typically, a company with a higher component of debt in its capital structure and/or a higherdependence on external (eg bank or bond market) sources for current and future financing plans will be riskier for creditors than a company witha higher component of equity in its capital structure, and with a lower dependence on external (eg bank or bond market) sources for current andfuture financing plans.- Financial Flexibility: Our methodology assumes that, typically, a company with low flexibility to redeploy assets and revise capital spending, highvolatility in investment or input cost needs, weak access to banks and other financing sources and weak contingency plans for additional financialneeds is riskier than a company with high flexibility to redeploy assets and reduce capital spending, low volatility in investment or input needs,strong access to a broad variety of financing sources and strong contingency plans for additional financial needs.Recovery Ratings and Notching Criteria for Non-Financial Corporate Issuers (eff. 05 Apr 2016)PrinciplesThe major principles applied in developing and maintaining the rating methodology for recovery ratings non-financial corporates are:Relative Risk: Our methodology reflects relative recovery given default. As such, they do not attempt to predict a cardinal default rate of recoveryor loss for a given rating level.Country Risk Overlay: Our methodology reflects the differential in treatment of defaulted obligations, depending on the location of the restructuringprocess, and arising from different legal codes (some of which are more favourable to creditors, some of which are more favourable to debtors) anddifferent systemic governance quality (the enforceability of creditor claims).Average versus Bespoke Recovery Levels: Our methodology uses a bespoke (ie mathematically derived) recovery analysis for issuers in lowspeculative grade (‘B+’ and below), where plausible scenarios of distress may be created, and where capital structures and cash flow generationmay both be closer to an eventual capital structure at default, and uses average recovery assumptions by debt class above that rating level, wherescenarios of distress are materially less plausible and where the capital structure and cash flow generation would both likely undergo significantchanges before a default occurred.Emergence Values: Our methodology uses emergence (ie post-default) values that are computed using multiples of post-default cash flows for thedefaulted entity.Going Concern and Liquidation: Our methodology reflects a belief that, typically, where a going concern treatment yields a superior value toliquidation treatment, the going concern treatment will prevail, unless other factors (eg declared creditor behavior, legal judgements, politicalobstacles or a wide span in overlapping valuations using both treatments) indicate the contrary.
Related Search

Previous Document

CI 95

Next Document

TAK DPD.docx

We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks