���������ֳ�

Covered Bonds Rating Criteria

This criteria report describes ���������ֳ�’ global methodology for assigning and monitoring credit ratings for covered bond obligations. A covered bond is a debt instrument with dual recourse to the issuing financial institution and to a pool of assets that can change over time. The rating addresses their probability of default and recoveries given default. These criteria, or elements of them, may be applied to the ratings, assigned on the international or national rating scale, of any dual-recourse instrument where considered appropriate by ���������ֳ�. The criteria are applied in conjunction with relevant master and cross-sector criteria and are supplemented by sector-specific criteria.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Exposure Draft: Sector Navigators – Transportation & Logistics

���������ֳ� is planning to introduce a new sector navigator for the Transportation & Logistics sector, which will provide a more detailed and transparent approach to rating companies in this industry. This navigator will apply globally to new ratings and the surveillance of existing ratings, focusing on both business and financial profile factors. Key rating factors include sector competitive intensity, industry profile, market position, business stability, financial structure, and financial flexibility. The new navigator aims to improve comparability of issuer ratings and transparency in ���������ֳ�'s rating process. Existing ratings are not expected to change as a result of this new navigator. Feedback on the proposed criteria is invited by 13 May 2025.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Subscription Finance Rating Criteria

This criteria report outlines ���������ֳ�’ methodology for assigning ratings to obligations backed by capital call commitments. Such subscription finance facilities (SFFs), also known as capital call facilities, subscription lines or equity bridge facilities, are provided to alternative investment funds and backed by their limited partners’ (LPs) capital commitments. SFFs, and other obligations backed by capital call commitments, may be extended to funds on a recourse or non-recourse basis, and on a secured or unsecured basis. This report applies globally to new ratings and their surveillance.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Exposure Draft: Corporate Rating Criteria - Appendix 1: Adjusting Consolidated Profiles for Group Structures

���������ֳ� has released an exposure draft proposing changes to its Corporate Rating Criteria, specifically regarding the treatment of minority interests in joint ventures (JVs) involving financial sponsors (FSs). The draft aims to clarify whether these interests should be treated as debt or equity. The key factors include the nature of cash flows, the FS exit mechanism, and the distribution policy of the JV. ���������ֳ� expects minimal rating impact, with fewer than 10 entities potentially affected by one notch. Feedback is invited by 10 May 2025, and existing criteria will apply during the exposure draft period.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Bank Rating Criteria

This criteria report outlines ���������ֳ�’ methodology for rating banks – including commercial and policy banks – and bank holding companies (BHCs), their financing companies and their obligations. The criteria apply globally to new and existing ratings, and are sometimes applied with other criteria (see Related Criteria). Key Rating Drivers Standalone Profile and Support: Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) assigned to banks and BHCs take into account both the entities’ standalone profiles and potential support. A bank’s Viability Rating (VR) captures its standalone profile, or intrinsic creditworthiness, while its Government Support Rating (GSR) or Shareholder Support Rating (SSR) reflect the likelihood of receiving external support in case of need. ‘Higher Of’ Approach for IDRs: We determine the Long-Term IDR a bank could attain based solely on its standalone financial strength (as reflected in its VR) or based solely on external support (as reflected in the SSR or GSR), and assign the IDR at the higher of these two levels. Exceptions to this approach are outlined in the section Assigning IDRs Above VRs. Qualitative and Financial Factors: To assign a bank’s VR, we first assess its operating environment, which then informs our assessments of six other key rating drivers (KRDs): two of which are qualitative (business profile and risk profile) and four of which are financial (asset quality; earnings & profitability; capitalisation & leverage; and funding & liquidity). We apply fixed weightings to our scores for these KRDs to derive an implied VR, which can then be adjusted to arrive at the assigned VR, based on analytical judgement.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Exposure Draft: Sector Navigators – Wireless Towers

The Wireless Towers Navigator provides guidance for the application of the concepts of the Corporate Rating Criteria to issuers operating in the Wireless Towers sector. Companies rated in this sector predominantly operate cellular and broadcast sites for communication equipment and radio access antennas for their tenants. When finalized these criteria will apply globally to new ratings and the surveillance of existing ratings. The criteria should be applied in conjunction with the Corporate Rating Criteria.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Non-Bank Financial Institutions Rating Criteria

This criteria report outlines ���������ֳ�’ methodology for rating non-bank financial institution issuers and their financial obligations — including securities firms, investment managers (including investment companies and investment funds), business development companies (BDCs), finance and leasing companies (including mortgage real estate investment trusts [REITs] and non-bank policy institutions) and financial market infrastructure (FMI) companies. The criteria would apply globally to new and existing ratings, sometimes in conjunction with other criteria (as listed under Related Criteria).

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Infrastructure & Project Finance Rating Criteria

This master criteria report identifies factors that ���������ֳ� considers when assigning ratings to Infrastructure & Project Finance obligations and issuers. This methodology also applies to public-private partnerships, infrastructure-like, infrastructure-related and sports entities globally, UK whole business securitisations and US Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds. Issuers may be special-purpose vehicles (SPVs), corporate or public finance entities with single or multiple assets across jurisdictions. The borrower or its affiliate(s) may directly or indirectly own or benefit from the assets or the rights to cash flows from the assets. This criteria report applies globally to new ratings and the surveillance of existing ratings, and is used to assign both international and national ratings. It is also used in conjunction with other applicable criteria (see Related Criteria).

Corporate Rating Criteria

Scope: This Master Criteria report identifies factors that ���������ֳ� considers when assigning Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) or instrument ratings. These criteria apply globally to new ratings and the surveillance of existing ratings. Not all rating factors in these criteria may apply to each individual rating or rating action given the broad range of entities within ���������ֳ�’s Corporates portfolio. Additional criteria reports, including those specific to a sector, a class of liability, a particular form of cross-sector risk or a particular form of corporate structure, supplement the application of these Master Criteria and are available at fitchratings.com.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria

Scope These criteria provide an overarching framework applicable to all new and existing structured finance (SF) transaction note ratings globally, including residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities (RMBS and CMBS, respectively), asset-backed securities (ABS) and structured credit ratings. Any detailed asset class-specific rating criteria published by ���������ֳ� should be considered in addition to these criteria. Key Rating Drivers Each of the key rating drivers below is of equal importance for the analysis. Asset Isolation and Legal Structure: SF transactions are structured to isolate, or “de-link,” an underlying pool of assets from the corporate credit risk of the original owner, or “originator”, of those assets. This is intended to ensure that the transaction’s main credit risk relates to that of the pool of assets, rather than the idiosyncratic credit risk of the originator. In the absence of other factors, the effective isolation of the assets from the credit risk of the originator can allow SF securities to achieve a rating higher than that of the originator. Asset Quality: ���������ֳ� analyses the assets’ credit characteristics to derive a loss expectation under a base case scenario. This assumption is stressed further in each successive rating category, so that securities rated in the high investment-grade categories (ie ‘AAAsf’ and ‘AAsf’) have loss expectations that are consistent with remote, high-severity stress scenarios. Financial Structure: Credit enhancement and structural features are key considerations in the assessment of the financial structure. ���������ֳ�’s rating for each bond reflects whether there is sufficient credit enhancement available to withstand potential losses given default on the underlying collateral pool in the relevant rating case scenario. ���������ֳ� will analyse the structural features, including the bond repayment structure.

Corporate Hybrids Treatment and Notching Criteria

This report updates the Corporate Hybrids Treatment and Notching Criteria, replacing the version from November 2020. ���������ֳ� assesses hybrid instruments' impact on corporate financial leverage and their notching relative to the Issuer Default Rating (IDR). Hybrids are categorized into 100% equity, 50% equity and 50% debt, or 100% debt based on their features. Instruments with mandatory conversion to equity may receive up to 100% equity credit, while optional convertibles typically receive none. Hybrids qualifying for equity credit are subordinated with low recovery prospects and are rated at least two notches below the IDR. The criteria also detail the treatment of hybrids with features like deep subordination, deferral options, and mandatory conversion. The report includes guidelines for assigning equity credit, notching hybrids, and evaluating hybrids throughout their lifecycle. Key rating sensitivities include changes in issuer credit risk, recovery prospects, and the likelihood of loss absorption activation.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Structured Finance and Covered Bonds Interest Rate Stresses Rating Criteria

This report outlines ���������ֳ�’ global methodology for analysing the interest rate change vulnerability of structured finance (SF) transactions and covered bonds (CVB). The interest rate stress criteria are applicable to the analysis of new SF deals and CVB, and in the surveillance of existing ones. Rating case interest rate assumptions (also referred to as interest rate stresses or stresses in this report) are applied in surveillance according to the criteria for each sector, but typically they are only a minor consideration in the assessment of ratings. The criteria are also applied in connection with new and existing ratings assigned under the U.S. Housing Finance Agency Loan Program Rating Criteria. The stresses outlined in these criteria are not forecasts and do not provide an interest rate term structure for use in discounted cash flow analysis. They capture potential movements in short-term reference rates, such as Euribor, SONIA, SOFR, ESTR and any other virtually risk-free money-market term rates replacing legacy IBOR variants. In the this report we collectively refer to these index rates as risk-free rates (RFRs). Where an interest rate other than a virtually credit risk-free short-term rate is used, this is highlighted in the criteria.

Structured Finance and Covered Bonds Country Risk Rating Criteria

This report outlines ���������ֳ�’ approach for considering country risk in structured finance (SF) transactions and covered bonds (CVB) programmes, when the relevant sovereign’s Local-Currency Issuer Default Rating (LC IDR) is below ‘AAA’. Country risk is reflected by limiting the highest achievable rating of the notes or CVB, either through the Country Ceiling or a maximum notch uplift above the sovereign’s LC IDR, and applying more punitive rating case assumptions. The criteria are applicable to international-scale ratings globally, including multi-jurisdictional SF notes and CVB.

Third-Party Partial Credit Support Rating Criteria

This report outlines ���������ֳ�’ approach to assigning new and existing, international and national scale long-term instrument ratings backed by third-party partial credit support (PCS) globally. It addresses how differences in PCS structures affect the recovery prospects and ratings of instruments that benefit from PCS . These criteria do not affect Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs). These criteria apply to non-financial corporates, financial institutions, insurance companies and sovereigns.

Structured Finance and Covered Bonds Counterparty Rating Criteria: Derivative Addendum

This Addendum describes ���������ֳ�’ approach to analyzing derivative counterparty exposure in new and existing structured finance (SF) transactions and covered bond (CVB) programs. It should be read in conjunction with the “Structured Finance and Covered Bonds Counterparty Rating Criteria.” ���������ֳ�’s analysis relies on counterparties being able to perform their obligations and meet the relevant minimum primary or secondary risk ratings. The availability of collateral is intended as a key mitigant if the counterparty defaults before being replaced (for continuation derivatives) or before the maturity of the transaction (for termination derivatives). As the mark-to-market valuation of the derivative can change over time and vary among counterparties, ���������ֳ�’s criteria include volatility cushions and liquidity adjustments. In ���������ֳ�’s analysis, collateral is limited to certain sovereign bonds, cash deposits with an eligible bank or other short-term qualified investments. ���������ֳ�’s analysis relies upon termination payments due to an in-the-money SF issuer to reflect the role of the derivative.

Structured Finance and Covered Bonds Counterparty Rating Criteria

This criteria report describes ���������ֳ�’ approach to counterparty risk in all new and existing structured finance (SF) transactions and covered bond (CVB) programmes, for both international and national scale ratings globally. ���������ֳ�’s approach to assessing counterparty risk breaks down to three steps that ultimately determine the extent to which the rating of the SF bonds can be delinked from that of the related counterparty. The three steps are: 1. Determining the source of the counterparty risk exposure as either credit risk or operational risk; 2. Categorizing each risk, considering legal and structural mitigants, into one of four risk levels: excessive, primary, secondary or immaterial; and 3. Assessing any available counterparty’s rating and documented remedial actions upon the loss of that rating, to determine the maximum achievable rating on the SF bonds.

Country Ceiling Criteria

This report describes ���������ֳ�’ criteria for assigning new and reviewing existing Country Ceilings, and applies to all ���������ֳ�-rated sovereign issuers. Country Ceilings measure Transfer and Convertibility (T&C) risk, which is the risk of capital and/or exchange controls being imposed that would prevent or significantly impede the private sector from converting local currency into foreign currency and transferring the proceeds to non-resident creditors to service debt payments. We consider that T&C risk has materialised when it affects all or the vast majority of economic sectors and asset classes. Country Ceilings are not ratings, but rather a key analytical input that may constrain the foreign-currency ratings of entities and transactions originated in the sovereign’s jurisdiction

Parent and Subsidiary Linkage Rating Criteria

This report outlines the methodology ���������ֳ� uses for assigning or monitoring Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) or National Long-Term Ratings for non-financial companies linked by a parent and subsidiary relationship. It also applies for IDRs and issue ratings assigned under the Infrastructure and Project Finance Rating Criteria. These criteria supplement and apply in conjunction with the Corporate Rating Criteria for the corporates sector, the Public Sector, Revenue-Supported Entities Rating Criteria for the public finance sector, and Infrastructure and Project Finance Rating Criteria for the infrastructure and project finance sector. The notching we apply to issuers rated on the national scale may vary from these criteria in order to preserve the ranking of risk within the country in question after considering national relativities. Please see the National Scale Rating Criteria for further details. These criteria do not apply to credit ratings assigned to primary entities covered by the Government-Related Entities Rating Criteria (i.e. entities directly owned by government sponsors). However, corporate subsidiaries of government-related entities (GREs) will generally be rated using the present criteria, subject to the specific limitations detailed on page 13.

Country-Specific Treatment of Recovery Ratings Criteria

Scope These criteria constrain the assignment of recovery ratings (RRs) and the upward notching of instrument ratings from Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) to reflect a less predictable range of recovery outcomes in certain jurisdictions based on country-specific factors. These criteria apply globally to new instrument ratings and RRs, and to the surveillance of these ratings for corporates, insurance companies and non-bank financial institutions. These criteria also include concepts that may be applicable to obligations rated under the Infrastructure and Project Finance Rating Criteria, as described in those criteria. Key Rating Drivers RR Caps by Country Groupings: ���������ֳ� classifies countries into four groups, each with different caps on instrument ratings and RRs. Instruments from issuers in countries in group A can be assigned RRs up to ‘RR1’; group B up to ‘RR2’; group C up to ‘RR3’, and group D up to ‘RR4’. The classing into groups is anchored on an assessment of each country’s governance environment, using a simple average of three indicators reported by the World Governance Indicators project of the World Bank: Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.

National Scale Rating Criteria

This criteria report outlines how ���������ֳ� assigns new national scale ratings and reviews existing ratings, as well as how national ratings scales relate to international scale ratings both at a given point in time, and as ratings migrate. National scale ratings are an opinion of an issuer’s creditworthiness relative to other issuers within a single country or monetary union, except in certain circumstances when ratings are notched. For national scale structured finance ratings, ���������ֳ� will use sector criteria together with the relevant National Ratings Correspondence Table described in this report and its Structured Finance and Covered Bonds Country Risk Rating Criteria. Issuer-level national scale ratings evaluate relative vulnerability to default on local-currency (LC)/legal obligations only for local issuers within the country concerned. They exclude transfer and convertibility risk. Instrument-level national ratings may also be assigned to i) foreign issuers’ obligations issued in the LC of the country concerned, and ii) local or foreign issuers’ (legal entities or branches) obligations where repayment is in foreign currency (FC) and a national scale rating is required to comply with local regulation or local market practices.

Latin America RMBS Rating Criteria

This report outlines ���������ֳ�' methodology for assigning and monitoring credit ratings for Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) in Latin America. It details the key rating drivers, criteria prerequisites, data requirements, and models used in the analysis. The report includes specific assumptions for countries and originators like Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, El Salvador, and Ecuador, considering factors such as foreclosure frequency, recovery rates, and macroeconomic adjustments. It also discusses the importance of origination and servicing reviews, data adjustments, and the impact of structural features on ratings. The criteria aim to ensure robust credit ratings reflective of the risks in the asset portfolios.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination.Further disclaimer can be found

CMBS Large Loan Rating Criteria

The CMBS large loan rating criteria set out herein are used to analyze loans in two types of CMBS transactions — single borrower and large loan pool. The criteria are also used to analyze U.S. single borrower commercial property assessed clean energy (C-PACE) financings and credit opinion loans within multiborrower fusion transactions. Both new and existing ratings are assigned using the criteria in this report.

Transportation Infrastructure Rating Criteria

This criteria report specifies ���������ֳ�’ global methodology for assigning and monitoring credit ratings to issuers or obligations, or both, where repayment is dependent upon cash flows from the ownership or operation of infrastructure or project finance transportation entities, or both, including those with multiple assets in different locations. The criteria applies to core (such as toll roads, airports and ports) and ancillary transportation infrastructure assets or transactions as well as to transactions in sectors with comparable characteristics, such as car parks. Issuers may be special-purpose vehicles, corporate holdcos or opcos, or public finance entities. This report should be read in conjunction with the Infrastructure and Project Finance Rating Criteria. Attribute tables are not prescriptive, but provide qualitative guidance in assessing project or entity risks.

Rating Colombian CRE-Backed Equity Securitizations

This report sets out the Colombia-specific issues addressed in ���������ֳ�’ analysis of equity securities backed by Colombian commercial real estate (CRE). The published criteria assumptions will be utilized in rating new and existing Colombian equity securitizations backed by these assets, on the national scale, which are described in Book 22 of Decree 2555 of 2010. The published criteria assumptions are not expected to result in rating actions on existing transactions.

Consumer ABS Rating Criteria - Residual Value Addendum

This criteria addendum outlines how ���������ֳ� analyses and monitors the residual value (RV) risk component of passenger and light commercial vehicle lease and loan ABS transactions rated under the Consumer ABS Rating Criteria. RV risk arises where obligors have an option to return the asset in lieu of paying a large final instalment at maturity of the lease or loan contract. The scope of the criteria also includes other asset types with RV exposure such as equipment lease/loan ABS. While the quantitative assumptions described herein are applicable to vehicles, specific rating assumptions and stresses will be developed and derived on a bespoke basis for other asset types and be considered a criteria variation, and will be published in transaction specific rating reports. US auto loan and lease ABS, US and Latin American equipment lease ABS are each rated under separate criteria. This addendum also describes ���������ֳ�’s approach to analysing UK and Ireland voluntary termination (VT) risk arising for hire-purchase or conditional sale agreements regulated under the Consumer Credit Act, an exposure that the agency views as similar to RV risk. This report is an addendum to, and should be read in conjunction with our Consumer ABS Rating Criteria, where obligor default risk and all other aspects of the rating analysis are discussed. Each of the key assumptions below is of equal importance in ���������ֳ�’s rating analysis.

Consumer ABS Rating Criteria

This criteria report outlines ���������ֳ�’ global methodology for analysing and monitoring credit risk inherent in asset-backed securities (ABS) backed by consumer receivables; it applies to both new and existing ratings. The portfolios consist of homogenous, amortising loan or lease products advanced to a granular pool of individuals. The criteria may also be applicable to similar portfolios with SME obligors (see Appendix 1: Applicable Criteria for SME Portfolios). Specific considerations are made for salary-assignment Loans (see Appendix 4) and US solar loans (see Appendix 5) given the particularities of these products. US auto loan and lease ABS, US and Latin American equipment lease ABS, student loan and credit card ABS are each rated under separate criteria.

Corporates Recovery Ratings and Instrument Ratings Criteria

This report describes ���������ֳ�’ criteria for assigning and monitoring international Recovery Ratings (RRs) and the notching effect of this approach to derive loan and bond instrument international ratings for non-financial corporate issuers globally. The overall risk for a particular instrument comprises two components: the relative probability of issuer default (the Issuer Default Rating, or IDR), and the likely recovery of each instrument given default (the RR). These criteria are used in conjunction with the Corporate Rating Criteria, which describe the analytical process underlying IDRs, and the Country-Specific Treatment of Recovery Ratings Criteria, which constrains the assignment of RRs and upward notching of instrument ratings to reflect a less predictable range of recovery outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Estimated recoveries and instrument ratings may also be influenced by the Third-Party Partial Credit Support Rating Criteria and the Government-Related Entities Rating Criteria. The notching approach described in these criteria does not apply to instruments that ���������ֳ� classifies as hybrids. For those, please refer to the Corporate Hybrids Treatment and Notching Criteria. Specific considerations also apply to real estate investment trusts (REITs), regulated utility companies and investment holding companies. These are described in the appendices of this report. For ���������ֳ�’s approach to instruments rating on the national scale, please refer to the National Scale Rating Criteria for further details.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found

Trade Receivables Securitization Rating Criteria

This report outlines the analytical approach applied by ���������ֳ� when rating a transaction backed by a portfolio of short-term trade receivables or factoring receivables. The criteria apply to existing receivables, i.e. where an invoice has been issued for goods delivered or services provided by the seller to end customers.

Chilean Equity Rating Criteria

This report describes the methodology that ���������ֳ� uses to rate stock instruments issued or to be issued and/or traded on Chilean stock markets. The ratings assigned to these instruments are national scale ratings and, therefore, are not comparable across countries. Equity ratings arose in response to regulatory requirements. However, they evolved to become a market practice, as such requirements are no longer applicable. Stocks referred to in this report include, but are not limited to, common shares issued by financial and non-financial entities. This methodology does not apply to preferred stock or shares issued outside the framework of a public offering by private funds or other investment vehicles.

Credit Card ABS Rating Criteria

This global criteria report describes ���������ֳ�’ methodology for rating asset-backed securities (ABS) backed by credit card receivables, including receivables of unsecured revolving lines of consumer credit substantially similar to credit cards. The criteria apply to new and existing ratings and international and national credit ratings. The relative influence of the qualitative and quantitative factors described below is listed in order of importance. Receivables’ Performance and Collateral Characteristics: Credit card ABS transactions are exposed to performance variations within the underlying receivables pool. Key performance parameters are chargeoff rates, monthly payment rates (MPRs), yield rates and purchase rates. In addition, delinquency and excess spread rates are important performance indicators. As the key part of ���������ֳ�’s rating approach, the asset analysis addresses the risk of performance deterioration and credit enhancement (CE) available to mitigate this risk.

This abstract may have been generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence and is therefore subject to error and inaccuracy, including but not limited to, hallucination. Further disclaimer can be found