Company Archives - Page 10 of 13

January 10, 2022

Yuzhou Group Holdings Company Limited — Moody’s downgrades Yuzhou to Caa2/Caa3; outlook negative

Rating Action: Moody’s downgrades Yuzhou to Caa2/Caa3; outlook negativeGlobal Credit Research – 10 Jan 2022Hong Kong, January 10, 2022 — Moody’s Investors Service has downgraded the corporate family rating (CFR) of Yuzhou Group Holdings Company Limited to Caa2 from B2. At the same time, Moody’s has downgraded the company’s senior unsecured rating on the bonds to Caa3 from B3.The outlook on the ratings remains negative.”The downgrade reflects Yuzhou’s increased refinancing risks driven by its weakened funding access and sizable amount of maturing debt,” says Celine Yang, a Moody’s Vice President and Senior Analyst.”The negative outlook reflects the uncertainty over the company’s ability to mobilize all of its cash to manage its refinancing needs over the next 6-12 months,” adds Yang.RATINGS RATIONALEMoody’s expects Yuzhou’s refinancing risks to heighten as it faces difficulties in raising new funds from onshore and offshore channels to address its maturing debts amid a tight credit environment. In particular, the company has a large amount of onshore and offshore debt maturing by the end of December 2022 — including around USD700 million of offshore bonds and RMB6.5 billion of onshore bond maturing or becoming puttable during the period. In particular, Yuzhou has a total of around USD590 million bonds maturing in January 2022.As of 30 June 2021, the company had unrestricted cash of RMB25 billion, compared with reported short-term debt of RMB15.2 billion. But Moody’s believes there is uncertainty for the company to mobilize all the cash, particularly for the cash holdings at the project and operating companies’ levels, for debt repayment.Moody’s also expects Yuzhou’s contracted sales to decline over the next 6-12 months, driven by weaker homebuyer confidence amid tight funding conditions. This will weaken the company’s operating cash flow and, in turn, its liquidity.Yuzhou’s Caa2 CFR is constrained by its high refinancing risk, weakened liquidity and funding access, as well as its weak credit metrics and high reliance on sales from joint ventures (JVs) and associates, which constrain its corporate transparency and increases uncertainty over its accessibility to the cash at the JV level.Yuzhou’s Caa3 senior unsecured bond rating is one notch below its CFR because of the risk of structural subordination. This subordination risk reflects the fact that most of Yuzhou’s claims are at the operating subsidiaries and have priority over claims at the holding company in a bankruptcy scenario. In addition, the holding company lacks significant mitigating factors for structural subordination. As a result, the expected recovery rate for claims at the holding company will be lower.In terms of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, Moody’s has considered Yuzhou’s concentrated ownership given the controlling shareholder, Mr. Lam Lung On, holds a 58.81{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} stake in the company as of 30 June 2021. Yuzhou had a relatively high dividend payout ratio of 46.8{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in 2019, compared with 35{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}-36.5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the previous four years.FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGSMoody’s could downgrade the ratings if Yuzhou’s funding access further weakens or if it defaults on its upcoming maturities.Given the negative outlook, a rating upgrade is unlikely. However, positive rating momentum could develop if the company strengthens its liquidity and significantly improves its operating cash flow.The principal methodology used in these ratings was Homebuilding And Property Development Industry published in January 2018 and available at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1108031. Alternatively, please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.Yuzhou Group Holdings Company Limited is a property developer that focuses on residential housing in the Yangtze River Delta and the West Strait Economic Zone. Established in Xiamen in the mid-1990s, Yuzhou is one of the city’s largest developers. The company moved its headquarters to Shanghai in 2016, and launched Shanghai-Shenzhen dual headquarters in 2020.Yuzhou listed its shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2009. As of 30 June 2021, Yuzhou’s land bank totaled 22 million square meters in saleable gross floor area.REGULATORY DISCLOSURESFor further specification of Moody’s key rating assumptions and sensitivity analysis, see the sections Methodology Assumptions and Sensitivity to Assumptions in the disclosure form. Moody’s Rating Symbols and Definitions can be found at: https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_79004.For ratings issued on a program, series, category/class of debt or security this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series, category/class of debt, security or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody’s rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the credit rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular credit rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider’s credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.For any affected securities or rated entities receiving direct credit support from the primary entity(ies) of this credit rating action, and whose ratings may change as a result of this credit rating action, the associated regulatory disclosures will be those of the guarantor entity. Exceptions to this approach exist for the following disclosures, if applicable to jurisdiction: Ancillary Services, Disclosure to rated entity, Disclosure from rated entity.The ratings have been disclosed to the rated entity or its designated agent(s) and issued with no amendment resulting from that disclosure.These ratings are solicited. Please refer to Moody’s Policy for Designating and Assigning Unsolicited Credit Ratings available on its website www.moodys.com.Moody’s considers a rated entity or its agent(s) to be participating when it maintains an overall relationship with Moody’s. Unless noted in the Regulatory Disclosures as a Non-Participating Entity, the rated entity is participating and the rated entity or its agent(s) generally provides Moody’s with information for the purposes of its ratings process. Please refer to www.moodys.com for the Regulatory Disclosures for each credit rating action under the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page and for details of Moody’s Policy for Designating Non-Participating Rated Entities.Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review.Moody’s general principles for assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks in our credit analysis can be found at http://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1288235.The Global Scale Credit Rating on this Credit Rating Announcement was issued by one of Moody’s affiliates outside the EU and is endorsed by Moody’s Deutschland GmbH, An der Welle 5, Frankfurt am Main 60322, Germany, in accordance with Art.4 paragraph 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on Credit Rating Agencies. Further information on the EU endorsement status and on the Moody’s office that issued the credit rating is available on www.moodys.com.The Global Scale Credit Rating on this Credit Rating Announcement was issued by one of Moody’s affiliates outside the UK and is endorsed by Moody’s Investors Service Limited, One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5FA under the law applicable to credit rating agencies in the UK. Further information on the UK endorsement status and on the Moody’s office that issued the credit rating is available on www.moodys.com.Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody’s legal entity that has issued the rating.Please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each credit rating.The first name below is the lead rating analyst for this Credit Rating and the last name below is the person primarily responsible for approving this Credit Rating. YuYing (Celine) Yang Vice President – Senior Analyst Corporate Finance Group Moody’s Investors Service Hong Kong Ltd. 24/F One Pacific Place 88 Queensway Hong Kong China (Hong Kong S.A.R.) JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Service: 852 3551 3077 Franco Leung Associate Managing Director Corporate Finance Group JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Service: 852 3551 3077 Releasing Office: Moody’s Investors Service Hong Kong Ltd. 24/F One Pacific Place 88 Queensway Hong Kong China (Hong Kong S.A.R.) JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Service: 852 3551 3077 © 2022 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 CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, “PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. 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 OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE APPLICABLE MOODY’S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER 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. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS 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, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND 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, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR 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.MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND 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 its 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 CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, 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 credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $5,000,000. MCO and Moody’s Investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}, 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.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 credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY100,000 to approximately JPY550,000,000.MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.

January 4, 2022

Apple hits $3 trillion market cap, becoming first company to hit the mark

Apple (AAPL) officially has a market place capitalization of $3 trillion. The tech large passed the $182.86 mark Monday, building it the initially publicly traded enterprise in heritage to strike these kinds of a market place valuation. Shares were being bouncing higher than and underneath the selection for the duration of the day.

Apple’s increase to a $3 trillion market place cap, which is centered on its stock rate, comes a lot less than two years just after its sector cap hit $2 trillion. Microsoft (MSFT) is also most likely on its way to the $3 trillion mark right after topping $2 trillion in June.

Apple’s increase to $3 trillion will come on the back of the remarkable achievements of its Apple iphone line, which has spawned accessories like the Apple Enjoy and AirPods, not to point out companies like AppleCare, the Application Keep, Apple New music+, and Apple Television set+.

Apple CEO Tim Cook greets fans outside the Apple Store on Fifth Ave in the Manhattan borough of New York, New York, U.S., September 20, 2019. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri — Apple CEO Tim Cook dinner greets admirers outdoors the Apple Keep on Fifth Ave in the Manhattan borough of New York, New York, U.S., September 20, 2019. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

Apple’s latest generation of hardware has, having said that, been struck by the exact same supply chain problems influencing every thing from car producers to home equipment makers. According to Bloomberg, the firm previously reduce its Iphone production intention by 10 million units in Oct thanks to offer constraints.

And Nikkei Asia experiences that Apple’s manufacturing associates in China have been obtaining times off when they would typically be doing the job total throttle to ramp up system availability for the holiday year.

But Apple has also demonstrated off some big innovations in 2021 which includes the launch of its impressive M1 Pro and M1 Max chips for its MacBook Pro laptops. Individuals chips enable Apple to ditch Intel’s own processors, giving Apple significantly more management about layout and efficiency.

And then there are reviews about Apple’s potential products including the noticeable updates to stalwarts like the Iphone, Apple Enjoy, and AirPods, as very well as fully new products groups like augmented fact and virtual reality headsets.

Apple’s increase to $3 trillion hasn’t been without the need of controversy, nonetheless. The firm has continuously been known as out for its cooperation with the Chinese government together with its censorship insurance policies and its want to shop user data there. Apple, nonetheless, says it “complies with the laws pertaining to nearby entities that handle shopper info and presents facts as lawfully demanded.”

Like its Major Tech compatriots, Apple is also contending with antitrust difficulties. In August 2020, “Fortnite” maker Epic filed suit in opposition to Apple proclaiming it violates antitrust rules by requiring builders to use its in-app payment system, which mechanically grants Apple a 30{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} rate for just about every acquire.

When the enterprise largely arrived out of the accommodate unscathed, the judge in the case has referred to as on Apple to enable third-celebration app developers to insert exterior obtaining alternatives to their apps. Apple is captivating the ruling.

The company is also reportedly staring down the prospect of an antitrust fight with the Division of Justice, which is said to be preparing its possess situation versus the Apple iphone maker. That would very likely emphasis on Apple’s control of the Iphone and its iOS working process.

Sign up for Yahoo Finance Tech publication

Much more from Dan

Comply with Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, LinkedIn, YouTube, and reddit

Acquired a suggestion? Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@yahoofinance.com above by means of encrypted mail at danielphowley@protonmail.com, and stick to him on Twitter at @DanielHowley.

January 1, 2022

Core Specialty Completes Merger with Lancer Insurance Company

– Lancer to function as a independently managed Division of Core Specialty, retaining the Lancer model and administration group

– Furthers Core Specialty’s momentum in building the primary specialty coverage enterprise

– Dave Delaney, Lancer’s CEO, joins the Main Specialty Board

– Deepens Main Specialty’s participation in the industrial vehicle current market, in which fees have been escalating

– Pro forma funds exceeds $1.1 billion

CINCINNATI, Ohio and Lengthy Beach, N.Y., Dec. 31, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Core Specialty Insurance policy Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“Main Specialty” or the “Organization”) and Lancer Insurance Firm (“Lancer”), both equally specialty assets and casualty (“P&C”) insurers, announced these days the completion of the merger combining the organizations in a inventory and hard cash transaction, which was formerly announced on April 16, 2021. Lancer provides Main Specialty around 35 many years of specialty industrial car know-how that extends the capabilities of Main Specialty’s existing diversified assortment of specialty P&C insurance merchandise. This mixture joins two extremely complementary enterprises with a shared strategic vision to turn into the major specialty P&C insurance company. The businesses formerly partnered in January 2021 to start a new excessive transportation method. The write-up-merger Main Specialty will be a further diversified corporation with an eye-catching company profile, a clean up equilibrium sheet and more than $1.1 billion in fairness capital.

(PRNewsfoto/Core Specialty Insurance Holdings) — (PRNewsfoto/Core Specialty Insurance plan Holdings)

This merger with Lancer marks Main Specialty’s to start with merger or acquisition considering that the recapitalization of StarStone U.S. in November 2020. The combined Lancer and Main Specialty have somewhere around 600 overall workers. Lancer, which has been a top provider of premier specialty insurance policy alternatives to corporations and commercial transportation corporations across the U.S. for over 35 yrs, will retain its model, management crew and working places. Lancer and Core Specialty are working collectively to make certain all policyholders go on to obtain field-leading products and solutions and services, and to align the combined functions in the ideal pursuits of consumers, brokers, brokers, and staff. Main Specialty operates by way of a company unit philosophy that makes it possible for its Divisions community decision-building for underwriting, claims, and plan servicing with a high degree of autonomy and total accountability.

Lancer shareholders been given a blend of Main Specialty popular shares, desired shares and money in the merger. The newly issued Main Specialty chosen shares will mandatorily transform into prevalent shares upon a Core Specialty original community presenting or selected other specified gatherings. In addition, Lancer’s current shareholders will keep the fiscal effects of improvement on Lancer’s present reserves for losses and reduction adjustment fees about a 5-calendar year period of time in a specified symmetrical variety. The transaction is anticipated to be accretive to Main Specialty’s earnings for each share and return on fairness in 2022.

Jeff Consolino will carry on to direct the put together organization as President and CEO and Ed Noonan will go on as Core Specialty Executive Chairman. Dave Delaney, Lancer’s CEO, has joined the Board of Main Specialty and will work intently with Mr. Consolino and senior members of the Lancer and Core Specialty teams in the integration of the enterprises. The Main Specialty Board of Directors will comprise the recent Board with the addition of Mr. Delaney. Matthew Jenkins, Lancer’s President & Chief Working Officer, will serve as President of Core Specialty’s Lancer Division.

Jeff Consolino stated: “From conception, Main Specialty’s eyesight has been to become the main specialty insurance provider and the Lancer merger continues our very strong development in our mission. Main Specialty has the cash to acquire on possibility, the underwriting expertise in place, a confirmed and decisive leadership workforce and a track report of making issues take place speedy. Collectively and in just about every of our expert niche business enterprise units, we intend to work with strong entrepreneurial spirit and generate, pace, agility, and empowered decision-building.

Lancer is a leader in the specialty transportation current market with a very long monitor history and a senior administration crew we know and admire. Lancer will operate as Main Specialty’s ninth specialty P&C business device.”

Dave Delaney, Co-Founder and CEO of Lancer, claimed, “All of us at Lancer are enthusiastic to be a part of forces with Core Specialty. Core Specialty’s administration group is remarkable, and our friendship with Jeff Consolino, Ed Noonan and users of Main Specialty’s Board goes back again a really lengthy way. I have no doubt Lancer and Main Specialty’s blended running and economic sources will produce huge progress options for our shareholders, staff, policyholders and distribution companions.”

“I have identified Dave Delaney for about 30 years. He is an great specialty P&C insurance policy operator, and I am energized that he will be signing up for the Main Specialty Board. We have assembled a Board for Main Specialty comprised of organization founders and organization builders which we believe is next to none, and Dave’s abilities will insert meaningfully to our Board. We are also delighted and honored that following many years of creating Lancer as an impartial, family members-managed business that Dave and his co-shareholders have the self confidence in Main Specialty’s management, business enterprise plan and investors to exchange their Lancer fairness for the chance to be part of their long term potential customers with ours,” said Ed Noonan, Government Chairman of Core Specialty.

Core Specialty Update

Considering the fact that the June 30, 2020 arrangement by Core Specialty to recapitalize StarStone U.S., the Business has developed from 4 organization models to 9 as a result of: forming a new Excessive & Surplus House Division, creating a Marine and Electricity Division from the StarStone London managed organization, separating and choosing new management for our Problems and Omissions Experienced Liability and D&O Management Specialist Legal responsibility Divisions, initiating an Agriculture Division and finishing the Lancer merger.

Core Specialty’s gross top quality published for the twelve-month interval ended September 30, 2021 was $1.7 billion and professional forma for the Lancer merger would be $1.9 billion.

About Core Specialty

Main Specialty features a diversified vary of residence and casualty coverage items for small to midsized organizations. From its underwriting offices spanning the U.S., the Business focuses on specialized niche marketplaces, community distribution, and excellent underwriting know-how supplying common as nicely as impressive insurance options to fulfill the requires of its shoppers and brokers. Core Specialty is an insurance plan keeping business running through StarStone Specialty Insurance coverage Enterprise, a U.S. surplus and surplus lines insurer, and StarStone National Coverage Firm, a U.S. admitted marketplaces insurer. The Business is rated A- (Superb) by AM Finest. For more info about Core Specialty, be sure to go to www.corespecialty.com.

About Lancer Insurance plan Enterprise

Lancer Insurance policies Company has been a leading company of premier specialty coverage methods to corporations and industrial transportation firms across the U.S. for around 35 decades, leveraging a community of about 2,000 broker interactions. Lancer specializes in auto liability, physical damage, cargo and common legal responsibility coverages. Lancer has continuously obtained an A- (Exceptional) score for economic strength and steadiness by AM Finest, a person of the most acknowledged ranking methods in the insurance coverage business. Be sure to take a look at www.lancerinsurance.com for far more data.

Make contact with:
Sam Reinhardt
Affiliate Vice President
Prosek Partners
+1 646 818 9244
sreinhardt@prosek.com

Cision

See authentic content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/information-releases/main-specialty-completes-merger-with-lancer-insurance policies-organization-301452349.html

Resource Main Specialty Insurance coverage Holdings

December 21, 2021

SHBANK Finance Company Limited — Moody’s extends review for upgrade on SHB Finance’s ratings

Announcement: Moody’s extends evaluation for enhance on SHB Finance’s ratingsGlobal Credit history Exploration – 20 Dec 2021Singapore, December 20, 2021 — Moody’s Buyers Company has currently extended its evaluation for upgrade on all extensive-phrase scores of SHBANK Finance Enterprise Restricted (SHB Finance). The rating evaluation was initiated on 01 September 2021 following Saigon – Hanoi Professional Joint Inventory Bank’s (SHB, B2 secure, b3) announcement of its agreement with Bank of Ayudhya (BAY, Baa1 stable, baa3) to provide a 100{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} equity stake in SHB Finance, subject matter to regulatory and board approvals. A finish list of afflicted rankings can be found in September 01, 2021 push release:https://www.moodys.com/investigate/Moodys-locations-SHB-Finances-rankings-on-assessment-for-enhance-on–PR_453554Ratings RATIONALEMoody’s is extending the overview approach for the reason that the transaction is pending exterior approvals and has for that reason not nevertheless been concluded.Upon the completion of the transaction, Moody’s expects the standalone credit score toughness of SHB Finance could make improvements to, thereby positioning upward stress on the firm’s rankings. The assessment for up grade demonstrates Moody’s expectation that BAY will support SHB Finance, since of its importance to BAY’s ASEAN expansion method, as perfectly as BAY’s important ownership and other reputational things to consider. At this time, Moody’s incorporates a superior likelihood of affiliate assistance for SHB Finance from SHB. About time, Moody’s expects SHB Finance to gain from funding, technological innovation, and hazard management assistance from BAY and its father or mother MUFG Financial institution, Ltd. (MUFG, A1 stable, a3), which has a lengthy historical past in shopper finance in elements of Asia. Moody’s will critique these benefits as very well as BAY’s involvement in environment the firm’s strategic way. The transaction will have two phases with SHB transferring 50{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the constitution funds all through the to start with period in the initially 50 {21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of 2022, and the remaining 50{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the upcoming 3 several years. On the completion of the initially section of transfer of ownership, Moody’s could update SHB Finance’s rankings by one particular notch to B2 dependent on the assumed affiliate assistance that SHB Finance will obtain from BAY. If the transaction is not authorized, Moody’s will confirm SHB Finance’s ratings. After the 2nd period is accomplished, SHB Finance’s rankings could obtain a far more sizeable uplift because of affiliate assistance. Provided the review for improve, Moody’s is not likely to downgrade SHB Finance’s ratings for the duration of the evaluate period. The methodology made use of in these scores was Finance Companies Methodology posted in November 2019 and readily available at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1187099. Alternatively, please see the Score Methodologies website page on www.moodys.com for a duplicate of this methodology. SHB Finance is headquartered in Hanoi, documented overall property of VND 4. Trillion as of 31 December 2020.Make sure you see www.moodys.com for any updates on improvements to the direct score analyst and to the Moody’s authorized entity that has issued the ranking. This publication does not announce a credit history ranking motion. For any credit rating rankings referenced in this publication, be sure to see the scores tab on the issuer/entity webpage on www.moodys.com for the most current credit score action facts and score record. Rebecca Tan VP-Senior Analyst/CSR Monetary Establishments Team Moody’s Buyers Services Singapore Pte. Ltd. 50 Raffles Put #23-06 Singapore Land Tower Singapore 48623 Singapore JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Consumer Assistance: 852 3551 3077 Graeme Knowd MD – Banking Financial Institutions Group JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Consumer Services: 852 3551 3077 Releasing Workplace: Moody’s Traders Support Singapore Pte. Ltd. 50 Raffles Spot #23-06 Singapore Land Tower Singapore 48623 Singapore JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Provider: 852 3551 3077 © 2021 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Assistance, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliate marketers (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All legal rights reserved.Credit score Scores ISSUED BY MOODY’S Credit Scores Affiliate marketers ARE THEIR Current Views OF THE RELATIVE Foreseeable future Credit history Hazard OF ENTITIES, Credit rating COMMITMENTS, OR Credit card debt OR Credit card debt-LIKE SECURITIES, AND Materials, Products and solutions, Companies AND Information and facts Printed BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, “PUBLICATIONS”) May Contain These kinds of Present Views. MOODY’S DEFINES Credit history Threat AS THE Risk THAT AN ENTITY May NOT Fulfill ITS CONTRACTUAL Money OBLIGATIONS AS THEY Appear Thanks AND ANY Estimated Economic Decline IN THE Celebration OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE Applicable MOODY’S Score SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR Data ON THE Types OF CONTRACTUAL Economic OBLIGATIONS Resolved BY MOODY’S Credit rating Rankings. Credit history Scores DO NOT Deal with ANY OTHER Hazard, Which include BUT NOT Limited TO: LIQUIDITY Risk, Market Value Chance, OR Selling price VOLATILITY. Credit score Scores, NON-Credit history ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER Views Involved IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF Current OR Historic Truth. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS Could ALSO Incorporate QUANTITATIVE Design-Based ESTIMATES OF Credit history Chance AND Linked Thoughts OR COMMENTARY Printed BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS Affiliate marketers. MOODY’S Credit history Rankings, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Thoughts AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT Constitute OR Offer Financial commitment OR Financial Assistance, AND MOODY’S Credit score Ratings, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Opinions AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT Deliver Tips TO Order, Promote, OR Keep Certain SECURITIES. MOODY’S Credit history Scores, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Viewpoints AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT Comment ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN Investment decision FOR ANY Individual Investor. MOODY’S Troubles ITS Credit history Ratings, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER Thoughts AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND Understanding THAT Every single Investor WILL, WITH Because of Treatment, MAKE ITS Have Examine AND Evaluation OF Every single Safety THAT IS Below Thing to consider FOR Buy, Holding, OR SALE.MOODY’S Credit score Ratings, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Thoughts, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT Supposed FOR USE BY RETAIL Traders AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL Investors TO USE MOODY’S Credit rating Rankings, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Thoughts OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN Making AN Expenditure Determination. IF IN Question YOU Must Call YOUR Monetary OR OTHER Qualified ADVISER.ALL Facts CONTAINED HEREIN IS Guarded BY Law, Which include BUT NOT Constrained TO, COPYRIGHT Law, AND NONE OF These Data May perhaps BE COPIED OR Otherwise REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, Even further TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR Saved FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY These types of Function, IN Whole OR IN Portion, IN ANY Type OR Fashion OR BY ANY Implies In anyway, BY ANY Particular person With no MOODY’S PRIOR Written CONSENT.MOODY’S Credit rating Scores, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Views AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT Supposed FOR USE BY ANY Individual AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT Time period IS Outlined FOR REGULATORY Functions AND Must NOT BE Utilised IN ANY WAY THAT COULD End result IN THEM Becoming Deemed A BENCHMARK.All information and facts contained herein is attained by MOODY’S from resources believed by it to be accurate and dependable. Simply because of the likelihood of human or mechanical mistake as perfectly as other components, on the other hand, all data contained herein is offered “AS IS” with no warranty of any form. MOODY’S adopts all necessary actions so that the information and facts it makes use of in assigning a credit score rating is of ample top quality and from sources MOODY’S considers to be dependable such as, when ideal, impartial third-get together resources. On the other hand, MOODY’S is not an auditor and are unable to in just about every occasion independently verify or validate information and facts gained in the rating course of action or in planning its Publications.To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its administrators, officers, workers, brokers, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any human being or entity for any oblique, specific, consequential, or incidental losses or damages in anyway arising from or in connection with the info contained herein or the use of or inability to use any this kind of information, even if MOODY’S or any of its administrators, officers, workers, agents, reps, licensors or suppliers is suggested in advance of the chance of this sort of losses or damages, such as but not constrained to: (a) any reduction of present or possible profits or (b) any reduction or injury arising where the pertinent monetary instrument is not the issue of a specific credit score score assigned by MOODY’S.To the extent permitted by legislation, MOODY’S and its administrators, officers, workers, brokers, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any immediate or compensatory losses or damages brought about to any human being or entity, which includes but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other style of legal responsibility that, for the avoidance of question, by legislation cannot be excluded) on the component of, or any contingency inside of or past the regulate of, MOODY’S or any of its administrators, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in relationship with the details contained herein or the use of or incapacity to use any such information and facts.NO Guarantee, Specific OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE Accuracy, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR Exercise FOR ANY Distinct Intent OF ANY Credit rating Score, Evaluation, OTHER Feeling OR Information IS Specified OR Built BY MOODY’S IN ANY Type OR Manner By any means.Moody’s Investors Provider, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating score company subsidiary of Moody’s Company (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of credit card debt securities (together with company and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and most well-liked inventory rated by Moody’s Investors Services, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit history ranking, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Support, Inc. for credit scores thoughts and companies rendered by it service fees ranging from $1,000 to around $5,000,000. MCO and Moody’s Traders Support also preserve procedures and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s Investors Service credit score ratings and credit score ranking procedures. Data relating to sure affiliations that may well exist between administrators of MCO and rated entities, and involving entities who maintain credit scores from Moody’s Buyers Company and have also publicly claimed to the SEC an ownership desire in MCO of additional than 5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}, is posted per year at www.moodys.com underneath 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 Economic Products and services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Traders Provider Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as relevant). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” inside of the indicating of portion 761G of the Firms Act 2001. By continuing to obtain this doc from in just Australia, you depict to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a agent of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you characterize will specifically or indirectly disseminate this doc or its contents to “retail clients” within the that means of segment 761G of the Businesses Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating rating is an impression as to the creditworthiness of a personal debt obligation of the issuer, not on the fairness securities of the issuer or any sort of stability that is out there to retail investors.Added conditions for Japan only: Moody’s Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit ranking agency subsidiary of Moody’s Team Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Abroad Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating score agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Acknowledged Statistical Score Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit score scores assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit history Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit history Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain sorts of procedure beneath U.S. legislation. MJKK and MSFJ are credit history rating companies registered with the Japan Economical Companies Company and their registration quantities are FSA Commissioner (Scores) 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 industrial paper) and most well-liked stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as relevant) have, prior to assignment of any credit history score, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as relevant) for credit history ratings opinions and companies rendered by it service fees ranging from JPY125,000 to approximately JPY550,000,000.MJKK and MSFJ also sustain policies and processes to deal with Japanese regulatory specifications.

December 17, 2021

Meta/Facebook is the worst company of the year: Yahoo Finance readers

Every December, Yahoo Finance selects a Company of the Year, based on its market performance and its achievements that particular year. In 2021, Microsoft (MSFT) took home the crown, smashing through the $2 trillion market capitalization mark and seeing a 53{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} surge in its stock price as of Dec. 16, year-to-date.

However, the spirit of Festivus has taught us we can learn just as much from the bad as the good by airing our grievances. That’s why Yahoo Finance also selects a Worst Company of the Year, polling our audience as to which company upset them the most.

Our survey’s 1,541 respondents were mad about a lot this year, from the Robinhood (HOOD) trading freezes last winter to electric truck startup Nikola still not having its act together. But one company irked them the most — Facebook (FB). The survey’s results shed more light on why the company decided to rebrand this year to a new name: Meta Platforms.

The open-ended survey was posted on Yahoo Finance on Dec. 4 and Dec. 5, and dozens of names were submitted. Facebook received 8{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the write-in vote.

Facebook has had its share of controversies this year. It’s been under the antitrust microscope and faced a flurry of allegations from a whistleblower claiming Facebook ignored safety issues for the sake of growth. Congress is constantly demanding answers from the company on both fronts. At the same time, some critics, including conservatives, say Facebook over-policed the platform’s speech and stifled their voices. Other critics, including those on the left side of the aisle, claim Facebook allows the spread of misinformation.

US whistleblower and former Facebook engineer Frances Haugen gives a testimony on the negative impact of big tech companies products on users, at the European Parliament in Brussels, on November 8, 2021. - Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen urged the EU to remain steadfast against big tech on November 8, boosting European efforts for new laws against US giants. The former Facebook engineer leaked a trove of internal documents that have sparked weeks of criticism of the social media giant. She met with key lawmakers in Brussels responsible for pushing through major legislation that could force the world's biggest tech firms to rethink the way they do business. (Photo by JOHN THYS / AFP) (Photo by JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images) — US whistleblower and former Facebook engineer Frances Haugen gives a testimony on the negative impact of big tech companies products on users, at the European Parliament in Brussels, on November 8, 2021.(Photo by JOHN THYS / AFP) (Photo by JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images)

What is especially interesting about the Company Formerly Known as Facebook is just how many and varied the reasons people dislike it. It received 50{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} more votes than the second-place finisher, Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, not for one singular offense but for a litany of grievances from groups of people that may have little else to agree about.

There were significant complaints of censorship, mainly of the right and conservative voices that felt that the “free-speech police” was being unfair and they were owed the right to say whatever they wanted to on the platform.

On the other side, people hectored the platform for failing to police significant misinformation that in the view of critics contributed to people not taking the pandemic’s potential for death seriously (797,877 official deaths in the U.S. and counting). Facebook was also blamed for the rise of far-right extremism and “undermining democracy worldwide,” as one respondent put it.

Outside of the political conversation, many respondents were upset with the company’s effects on children and young people, citing its photo-sharing site Instagram and its effects on mental health, after internal documents revealed the company knew Instagram made teenage girls feel worse about body image issues but didn’t address the problem.

Facebook/Meta Platforms did not respond to a request for comment.

Can the company redeem itself?

Around 30{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of Yahoo Finance readers who responded to the survey said that Facebook or Meta could redeem itself.

One respondent said Facebook could redeem itself by acknowledging and apologizing for what it did and donating a “sizable amount” of its profits for a foundation to help reverse its harm. While some people saw the Meta rebrand as a cynical attempt to change the conversation, following Don Draper’s advice in scandal, others were excited by the potential of a new direction that could a) be interesting and b) something different from the aging social media model.

A significant amount of responses focused on executives and founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg has certainly never been Mr. Popular, which Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher decided was the reason he created “The Facebook,” in the movie “The Social Network.” But he has long been seen as a visionary with an uncanny knack at predicting (or manifesting) the future, making it unlikely he departs from the company he founded, shaped, and pivoted.

One way it could redeem itself, for the angry investors in the survey, would be to grow its stock price, apparently. The stock is up 22{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} year-to-date — strong, but lagging the S&P 500— but down around 13{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} from its September high.

Zuckerberg and co. have their challenges cut out for them in 2022. Fortunately for them, they’re already reinventing the company.

The (dis)honorable mentions

The annual airing of grievances saw a few companies get special mention from Yahoo Finance readers.

Alibaba’s (BABA) almost 50{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} drop year-to-date earned it the number two spot. Investors are upset at having lost money.
AT&T’s (T) loss of 24{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} year-to-date as the S&P 500 saw a 24{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} increase. Like Alibaba, this is a story of share price dissatisfaction.
Nikola (NKLA) and its many issues last year, with a short seller claiming it was a fraud.
Tesla (TSLA) stock has soared, but people are furious with the company rolling out products before they are ready, sexual harrassment scandals, and the general cult of personality surrounding 2021’s Time Person of the Year.
Market-maker Citadel Securities and retail trading platform Robinhood (HOOD) had their time in the doghouse during the Gamestock hubbub almost a year ago, and many have not forgotten — and continue to see these players as icing out ordinary retail investors they purport to help.

This was an open-ended survey performed on Survey Monkey via the Yahoo Finance home page from Dec. 4 to Dec,. 5. 1,541 people responded.

–

Ethan Wolff-Mann is a Senior Writer and Chief of Staff at Yahoo Finance. When he is reporting, he focuses on investing, consumer issues, and personal finance. Follow him on Twitter @ewolffmann.

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, LinkedIn, YouTube, and reddit

December 14, 2021

Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC — Moody’s affirms at Baa3 Nissan Motor Acceptance’s long-term senior unsecured ratings; changes outlook to stable from negative

Rating Action: Moody’s affirms at Baa3 Nissan Motor Acceptance’s long-term senior unsecured ratings; changes outlook to stable from negativeGlobal Credit Research – 13 Dec 2021New York, December 13, 2021 — Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has affirmed all the ratings for Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC (NMAC), including its Baa3 long-term senior unsecured ratings and its Prime-3 backed commercial paper rating. NMAC’s outlook was changed to stable from negative.The rating actions follow similar actions on the ratings for NMAC’s ultimate parent, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Nissan, Baa3 stable), whose ratings were also affirmed with outlook changed to stable from negative.Affirmations:..Issuer: Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC….Backed Commercial Paper, Affirmed P-3….Backed Senior Unsecured Medium-Term Note Program, Affirmed (P)Baa3….Backed Senior Unsecured Regular Bond/Debenture, Affirmed Baa3….Senior Unsecured Regular Bond/Debenture, Affirmed Baa3Outlook Actions:..Issuer: Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC….Outlook, Changed To Stable From NegativeRATINGS RATIONALEThe ratings for NMAC reflect both its intrinsic credit quality (ba1 standalone assessment) and uplift derived from support from Nissan. NMAC’s Baa3 long-term ratings are aligned with Nissan’s Baa3 ratings, based on NMAC’s strategic significance to Nissan, Moody’s expectation that Nissan would support NMAC if required, as well as the explicit support agreement in place between the two companies.Moody’s said NMAC’s ba1 standalone assessment reflects its good capitalization that protects creditors against unexpected losses and strong liquidity. Similar to its peers, the company continues to be extremely profitable, and NMAC’s tangible equity to tangible assets remains strong (15.6{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} at 30 September 2021), despite it having made a sizeable $1.3 billion parental distribution in June 2021.Moody’s said that NMAC is the only firm among rated US auto captive companies that has an agreement with its parent wherein the parent provides an indemnification from losses associated with the lease portfolio (39{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of managed assets at 30 September 2021), making NMAC comparatively less vulnerable to variations in used car prices. Moody’s expects the extraordinary used car price appreciation that has occurred during the coronavirus pandemic to moderate by the end of 2022. Through October 2021, used car prices increased 45{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} from 2020 levels.NMAC’s managed receivables ($38.2 billion at 30 September 2021) have declined by approximately 10{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} since last year. Moody’s expects, however, that the company’s receivables will be supported by better new vehicle sales at Nissan. Since the beginning of this year through 30 September 2021, Nissan saw an increase in sales in the US by approximately 19{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}. This compares to a decline of about 33{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in 2020. The anticipated growth in retail portfolio may be slightly offset by declining dealer financings and uncertainty around consistency of new vehicle sales growth due to the semiconductor shortage and supply chain disruptions expected to continue partially through 2022. Other credit challenges for NMAC include its significant use of securitization that reduces the company’s ability to access alternative sources of liquidity, said Moody’s.FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGSNMAC’s ratings could be upgraded if the ratings for its parent Nissan are upgraded. An upward adjustment of NMAC’s standalone assessment is unlikely given its reliance on one car manufacturer for revenue and assets and its dependency on market funding.NMAC’s ratings could be downgraded following a downgrade of the ratings for its parent Nissan. A downward adjustment of NMAC’s standalone assessment could occur should there be a sustained material decline in asset quality and profitability, diminished liquidity, or leverage (TCE/TMA) reducing to less than 12{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}. However, a downward adjustment of NMAC’s standalone assessment without a change in Moody’s assessment of Nissan’s willingness and ability to support NMAC would likely not affect NMAC’s ratings.Headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee, Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan North America, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd (Nissan). As of 30 September 2021, NMAC had approximately a $38 billion portfolio of finance receivables and operating leases.The methodologies used in these ratings were Finance Companies Methodology published in November 2019 and available at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1187099, and Captive Finance Subsidiaries of Nonfinancial Corporations published in August 2019 and available at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1183459. Alternatively, please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of these methodologies. REGULATORY DISCLOSURESFor further specification of Moody’s key rating assumptions and sensitivity analysis, see the sections Methodology Assumptions and Sensitivity to Assumptions in the disclosure form. Moody’s Rating Symbols and Definitions can be found at: https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_79004.For ratings issued on a program, series, category/class of debt or security this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series, category/class of debt, security or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody’s rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the credit rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular credit rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider’s credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.For any affected securities or rated entities receiving direct credit support from the primary entity(ies) of this credit rating action, and whose ratings may change as a result of this credit rating action, the associated regulatory disclosures will be those of the guarantor entity. Exceptions to this approach exist for the following disclosures, if applicable to jurisdiction: Ancillary Services, Disclosure to rated entity, Disclosure from rated entity.The ratings have been disclosed to the rated entity or its designated agent(s) and issued with no amendment resulting from that disclosure.These ratings are solicited. Please refer to Moody’s Policy for Designating and Assigning Unsolicited Credit Ratings available on its website www.moodys.com.Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review.Moody’s general principles for assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks in our credit analysis can be found at http://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1288235.The Global Scale Credit Rating on this Credit Rating Announcement was issued by one of Moody’s affiliates outside the EU and is endorsed by Moody’s Deutschland GmbH, An der Welle 5, Frankfurt am Main 60322, Germany, in accordance with Art.4 paragraph 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on Credit Rating Agencies. Further information on the EU endorsement status and on the Moody’s office that issued the credit rating is available on www.moodys.com.The Global Scale Credit Rating on this Credit Rating Announcement was issued by one of Moody’s affiliates outside the UK and is endorsed by Moody’s Investors Service Limited, One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5FA under the law applicable to credit rating agencies in the UK. Further information on the UK endorsement status and on the Moody’s office that issued the credit rating is available on www.moodys.com.Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody’s legal entity that has issued the rating.Please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each credit rating. Inna Bodeck Vice President – Senior Analyst Financial Institutions Group Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 U.S.A. JOURNALISTS: 1 212 553 0376 Client Service: 1 212 553 1653 Donald Robertson Associate Managing Director Financial Institutions Group JOURNALISTS: 1 212 553 0376 Client Service: 1 212 553 1653 Releasing Office: Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 U.S.A. JOURNALISTS: 1 212 553 0376 Client Service: 1 212 553 1653 © 2021 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 CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, “PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. 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 OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE APPLICABLE MOODY’S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER 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. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS 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, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND 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, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR 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.MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND 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 its 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 CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, 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 credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $5,000,000. MCO and Moody’s Investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}, 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.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 credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY125,000 to approximately JPY550,000,000.MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.