corporate rating component scores - s&p global

FALSE

Corporate RatingComponentScoresAsia Pacific

Q4 2020

APAC Corporate Rating Component Scores Oct. 31, 2020

For more information on the corporate criteria framework, please refer to the Corporate Methodology.

Corporate Rating Component Scores

Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Asia Pacific

Methodology," which is the criteria we use for rating corporate industrial companies and utilities. We list the scores for the 530 public ratings in APAC that are within the scope of our

corporate methodology, accompanied by charts that show the distribution of aggregated scores. We believe that the list and charts enhance benchmarking across industries and rating levels

for all market participants.

We disclose these scores in line with the information we provide in our rating research publications, such as research updates and full analyses. By releasing all scores for public corporate

ratings in APAC, S&P Global Ratings confirms its commitment to deliver greater transparency and insight into the ratings process and simplify access for all market participants. Ratings are

organized alphabetically by industry sector.

The scores reflect the building blocks of the corporate ratings framework (see chart 1). Modifiers and components related to our group rating methodology or government-related entity

methodology are indicated only where they have a positive or negative effect on the rating.

The report reflects corporate credit ratings and scores as of Oct. 31, 2020. This document will not be updated for future rating actions or score revisions. To keep it concise, the list only

discloses scores for the main rated entity of larger corporate groups. We omit certain entities such as subsidiaries or holding companies where the ratings are linked to those on their parent

companies. In this report, we highlight changes since Jan. 6, 2020.

An Excel copy of the company scores data is embedded in this report (see attachment sidebar).

0

50

100

150

200

250

AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC

Issuer credit rating (foreigncurrency)

(No. of ratings)

S&P Global Ratings 2

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/SPResearch.aspx?articleId=&ArtObjectId=8314109&ArtRevId=7&sid=&sind=A&

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/showArticlePage.do?object_id=8314109&rev_id=10&sid=1401987&sind=A&























































Source: S&P Global Ratings. Volatility of profitability is a component score of competitive position. Source: S&P Global Ratings. Absolute profitability is a component score of competitive position.

Source: S&P Global Ratings. The business risk profile and financial risk profile are combined to determine

the anchor.

Source: S&P Global Ratings. The business risk profile and financial risk profile are combined to determine the

anchor.

Source: S&P Global Ratings. The country risk and industry risk are combined to determine the CICRA

(Corporate Industry and Country Risk Assessment.

Distribution Of Component Scores The charts below provide a detailed breakdown of component scores for all publicly rated APAC corporate entities that fall under the scope of our corporate criteria.

Source: S&P Global Ratings. Competitive position is a component score of the business risk profile.

Above average, 19%

Average, 64%

Below average, 17%

1

2

3

4

56 [1] Excellent, 7%

[2] Strong, 25%

[3] Satisfactory, 34%

[4] Fair, 19%

[5] Weak, 11%

[6] Vulnerable, 3%

1

2

3

4

5

6

[1] Minimal, 10%

[2] Modest, 17%

[3] Intermediate, 22%

[4] Significant, 15%

[5] Aggressive, 17%

[6] Highly leveraged, 20%

1

2

3

4

56 [1] Excellent, 8%

[2] Strong, 22%


[4] Fair, 18%

[5] Weak, 12%

[6] Vulnerable, 3%

1

2

3

4

5

6

[1] Very low risk, 7%

[2] Low risk, 20%

[3] Intermediate risk, 36%

[4] Moderately high risk, 36%

[5] High risk, 1%

[6] Very high risk, 0%

1

2

3

4

56 [1] Very low, 4%

[2] Low, 19%


[4] Fair, 29%

[5] High, 11%

[6] Very high, 2%



Source: S&P Global Ratings. Modifiers notch the anchor to the final rating. Source: S&P Global Ratings. Modifiers notch the anchor to the final rating.

Source: S&P Global Ratings. Modifiers notch the anchor to the final rating. Source: S&P Global Ratings. Modifiers notch the anchor to the final rating.

Distribution Of Component Scores (II)

Source: S&P Global Ratings. Modifiers notch the anchor to the final rating. Source: S&P Global Ratings. Modifiers notch the anchor to the final rating. FS -- Financial Sponsor.

The charts below provide a detailed breakdown of component scores for all publicly rated APAC corporate entities that fall under the scope of our corporate criteria.

Significant, 0%

Moderate, 2%

Neutral/undiversified, 98%

Very positive, 0%

Positive, 2%

Neutral, 97%

Negative, 1%

Very negative, 0%

Exceptional, 2%

Strong, 21%

Adequate, 69%

Less than adequate, 8%

Weak, 1% Positive, 1%

Neutral, 92%

Negative, 6%

FS-4, 0%

FS-5, 1%

FS-6, 1%

FS-6 (minus), 0%

Strong, 10%

Satisfactory, 50%

Fair, 38%

Weak, 1%

Positive, 26%

Neutral, 61%

Negative, 13%



Aerospace & Defense

Agribusiness & Commodity Foods

Auto OEM

Auto Suppliers

Branded Nondurables

Building Materials

Business & Consumer Services

Capital Goods

Commodity Chemicals

Consumer Durables

Containers & Packaging

Engineering & Construction

Environmental Services

Forest & Paper Products

Healthcare Equipment

Healthcare Services

Homebuilders & Developers

Leisure & Sports

Media & Entertainment

Metals & Mining Downstream

Metals & Mining Upstream

Oil & Gas Drilling, Equipment & Services

Oil & Gas Integrated, Exploration & Production

Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing

Pharmaceuticals

Railroads & Package Express

Real Estate Investment Companies

Regulated Utilities

Retail & Restaurants

Specialty Chemicals

Technology - Hardware & Semiconductors

Technology - Software & Services

Telecom & Cable

Transportation Cyclical

Transportation Infrastructure

Unregulated Power & Gas

5

4

9

45

12

22

1

1

17

1

1

2.4

6.0

No change

5.3

16

3.7

4.3

4.0

3.9

3.0

2.7

2

14

10

Stronger

Weaker

Stronger3.5

4.4

2.7

No change2.9

2.3

3.8

Stronger4.5

Stronger4.7

No change4.5

Weaker

Stronger4.0

Table 1 | Average business risk profile and financial risk profile scores by industry

Weaker

Stronger

Stronger

Weaker

12

5

8

13

15

2

5

13

13

1

1

71

No change

Weaker

3.2

2.7

5.0

3.9

Weaker

No change

Stronger

4.0

3.9

4.4

3.8

5.4

4.0

3.3 Stronger

6.0

1.0

6.0

3.9

3.4 No change

Weaker

No change

Stronger

Stronger

Stronger

Stronger

No change

No change

Stronger

No change

2.7

4.1

2.8

4.0

3.5

3.0

4.8

5.0

3.4

3.5

4.3

3.4

3.4

2.3

3.2

2.5

4.3

2.1

3.1

24

4

40

15

72

18

5

19

9

3.2

3.3 3.3

2.6

4.4

2.1

3.1

3.8

4.5

4.0

5.0

4.0

Average Component Scores By Industry The table shows how the average scores for the Business Risk Profile (BRP) and Financial Risk Profile (FRP) assessments have changed since January 2020 across 36¹ nonfinancial corporate

industries, as defined in "Methodology: Industry Risk".

Jan-20

3.0

2.8

3.5

Change

Weaker

No change

Stronger

Oct-20

3.0

3.0

3.6

No. of

corporates

/industry Oct-20 Jan-20

4.0

3.8

4.0

3.0

4.1

3.0

4.0

4.0

4.4

3.3

3.4

3.2

4.3

3.4

2.5

3.3

2.6

3.8

2.8

3.8

1.0

3.0

4.7

3.2

2.2

2.2

2.8

3.0

3.8

3.7

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.4

3.2

2.3

2.2

2.9

3.2

3.0

No change

Stronger

No change

2.9

Stronger

4.1

4.6

No change

4.5

3.2

3.6

3.5

2.9

4.6

2.6

Weaker

3.7

3.5

3.3

4.6

2.3

2.6

2.9

3.0

4.2

3.6

2.9

Weaker

Financial risk profile³ Business risk profile² Industry

Change

¹Transportation leasing companies are currently out of the scope of this report.

²Business Risk Descriptors: 1 - Excellent, 2 - Strong, 3 - Satisfactory, 4 - Fair, 5 - Weak, 6 - Vulnerable

³Financial Risk Descriptors: 1 - Minimal, 2 - Modest, 3 - Intermediate, 4 - Significant, 5 - Aggressive, 6 - Highly Leveraged

Source: S&P Global Ratings. Click on an industry to navigate to the underlying company scores in the report.

Stronger

No change

Stronger

No change

Stronger

No change

No change

Stronger

Stronger

Stronger

No change

Stronger

Stronger

Stronger

No change

Stronger

No change

No change

Stronger

Weaker

Weaker

Stronger

No change

Stronger

No change

No change

Stronger

2.8

3.6

4.0

3.5

2.1

2.5

2.9



Component Scores Breakdown by Industry

Financial risk profile Company CICRA¹ Competitive position Business risk Cash flow/leverage Anchor Modifiers (active) Liquidity FC LT³ Rating

AEROSPACE & DEFENSE

» AVIC International Holding Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b

Diversification effect: Moderate (+1 notch)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate AAA

Average scores for Aerospace & Defense 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0

AGRIBUSINESS & COMMODITY FOODS

» COFCO (Hong Kong) Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Adequate A-

» Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Adequate A-

» PT Japfa Comfeed Indonesia Tbk. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bb- (was bb) Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BB-

» Wens Foodstuff Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» WH Group Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB

Average scores for Agribusiness & Commodity Foods 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4

AUTO OEM

» BAIC Motor Corp. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Strong BBB (was BBB+)

» Beijing Automotive Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bb- (was bb) Adequate BBB (was BBB+)

» China FAW Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Strong A

» Dongfeng Motor Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [1] Minimal bbb Adequate A

» Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Strong BBB-

» Honda Motor Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Strong A- (was A)

» Hyundai Motor Co. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Strong BBB+

» Kia Motors Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Strong BBB+

» Mitsubishi Motors Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [2] Modest bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Strong BB (was BB+)

» Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair (was [2]) [4] Fair (was [3]) [2] Modest (was [1]) bbb- (was a-) Strong BBB- (was BBB+)

» Tata Motors Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) b (was bb-) Adequate B (was B+)

» Toyota Motor Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Exceptional A+ (was AA-)

» Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

Average scores for Auto OEM 4.0 3.5 3.6 2.3

AUTO SUPPLIERS

» Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Strong A (was A+)

» Bridgestone Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [2] Modest a Strong A

» Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Strong BBB+

» Denso Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Strong A+ (was AA-)

» Hankook Tire & Technology Co., Ltd [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Hyundai Mobis Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Strong BBB+

» Johnson Electric Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong BBB

» Nexteer Automotive Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Strong BBB-

» Pearl Holding III Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged N/A (was b-) CCC+ (was B-)

» PT Gajah Tunggal Tbk. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) N/A (was b+) CCC+ (was B-)

» Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+


Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A

» Toyota Industries Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Adequate A+ (was AA-)

» Yanfeng Global Automotive Interior Systems Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Adequate BBB-

Average scores for Auto Suppliers 3.9 3.0 3.3 2.5

BRANDED NONDURABLES

» 361 Degrees International Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [6] Vulnerable (was [5]) [6] Vulnerable (was [5]) [5] Aggressive (was [4]) b (was bb-) Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate B- (was BB-)

» Ajinomoto Co. Inc. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A+

» Bright Food (Group) Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BBB

» Bright Food International Ltd. [2] Low risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Less than adequate BBB-

» Casio Computer Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [1] Minimal bbb Exceptional BBB (was BBB+)

» China Mengniu Dairy Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Adequate BBB+

» Fufeng Group Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Adequate BBB-

» Health and Happiness (H&H) International Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Adequate BB+

» Japan Tobacco Inc. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Strong AA-

» Snacking Investments BidCo Pty Ltd. [2] Low risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B

» Suntory Holdings Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Strong BBB

» Tingyi (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Strong BBB+

Business Risk Profile

Breakdown of corporate ratings component scores for APAC Corporate Ratings, as of Oct. 31, 2020. Click on a company's name tonavigate to its page on Capital IQ RatingsDirect.

An Excel copy of the data is embedded in this report (see attachment sidebar). Reports for other regions can be accessed at: here.

¹Corporate Industry and Country Risk Assessment. ²Active impact on rating from group/government influence. ³Foreign Currency Long Term Corporate Credit Rating.

S&P Global Ratings

6

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/RatingsDirect/GCPTearsheet.aspx?entityid=549547







































































































































https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/RatingsDirect/IndustryLandingPage.aspx?pageCode=1000

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/CreditResearch.aspx?screenId=1820079


Company CICRA¹ Competitive position Business risk Cash flow/leverage Anchor Modifiers (active) Liquidity FC LT³ Rating

Average scores for Branded Nondurables 2.5 3.4 3.4 3.3

BUILDING MATERIALS

» Anhui Conch Cement Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Exceptional A

» Boral Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» CSR Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Financial policy: Negative (-2 notches) Strong BBB+

» KCC Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bb (was bbb-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BB+ (was BBB-)

» Reece Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Adequate BB+

Average scores for Building Materials 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.6

BUSINESS & CONSUMER SERVICES

» China Dili Group [3] Intermediate risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [4] Significant (was [6]) b+ (was b-)

Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral)

Management & governance: Weak (-1 notch) Less than adequate B-

» Computershare Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» E-House (China) Enterprise Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [4] Significant (was [3]) bb- (was bb) Adequate BB- (was BB)

» Li & Fung Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong BBB

» SAI Global Holdings I (Australia) Pty Ltd [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged N/A CCC

» Toyo Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong BBB-

» Vistra Group Holdings (BVI) I Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B

» WuXi AppTec Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [1] Minimal bbb- Adequate BBB-

Average scores for Business & Consumer Services 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.8

CAPITAL GOODS

» CRRC Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Strong A+

» Doosan Bobcat Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BB

» EMECO Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [4] Significant (was [5]) b+ (was b) Adequate B+ (was B)

» Hitachi Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a


Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A

» Komatsu Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Adequate A

» Mitsubishi Electric Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A+

» Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+


Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BBB+ (was A-)

» Omron Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Strong A

» Onsite Rental Group Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Adequate B-

» Shanghai Electric (Group) Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb (was bbb+) Adequate A

» Toshiba Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Management & governance: Weak (-1 notch) Adequate BB

» Weichai Power Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Strong BBB

» Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science and Technology Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive (was [6]) bb- (was b) Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate B+ (was B)

Average scores for Capital Goods 3.0 3.4 3.4 2.8

COMMODITY CHEMICALS

» Formosa Petrochemical Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Formosa Plastics Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory (was [2]) [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb (was 0) Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch, was 0) Adequate BBB+ (was A-)

» Hanwha Total Petrochemical Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Adequate BBB

» Huayi Group (Hong Kong) Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [6] Highly leveraged b- Adequate BBB-

» LG Chem Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Nan Ya Plastics Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Nufarm Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak (was [4]) [5] Weak (was [4]) [5] Aggressive (was [4]) b+ (was bb) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BB- (was BB)

» Pandita Industries Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [5] Aggressive b

Capital structure: Negative (-1 notch)

Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Less than adequate B-

» PTT Global Chemical Public Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Adequate BBB+

» Rain Carbon Inc. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate B+

» Shanghai Huayi (Group) Co. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Sinochem International Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Adequate BBB+

» SK Global Chemical Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB

» UPL Corp. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Strong BBB-

» Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

Average scores for Commodity Chemicals 4.0 3.5 3.7 3.8

CONSUMER DURABLES

» Midea Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Exceptional A-

Average scores for Consumer Durables 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0

CONTAINERS & PACKAGING

» Amcor PLC [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Strong BBB


S&P Global Ratings

7




































































































































Average scores for Containers & Packaging 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION

» Beijing Haidian State-Owned Asset Investment Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Less than adequate BBB- (was BBB)

» China Aluminum International Engineering Corp. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) b (was b+) Adequate BB (was BB+)

» China Metallurgical Group Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BBB+

» China Railway Construction Corp. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A-

» China Railway Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB+

» China State Construction Engineering Corp. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A

» China State Construction International Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb Adequate BBB

» Chongqing Nan'an Urban Construction & Development (Group) Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» CIMIC Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest (was [1]) bbb+ (was a-) Strong BBB

» Metallurgical Corp. of China Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BBB+

» Nanjing Yangzi State-Owned Assets Investment Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Perenti Global Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [3] Intermediate bb Adequate BB

» Power Construction Corp. of China [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Serba Dinamik Holdings Bhd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive (was [4]) b+ (was bb-) Less than adequate B+ (was BB-)

» Shanghai Construction Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Ventia Pty Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bb- (was bb) Strong BB (was BB+)

»

Yangzhou Economic and Technological Development Zone Development

Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Less than adequate BB+

Average scores for Engineering & Construction 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.7

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

» Beijing Environment Sanitation Engineering Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BBB

Average scores for Environmental Services 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0

FOREST & PAPER PRODUCTS

» PT Sawit Sumbermas Sarana Tbk [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged N/A CCC+

Average scores for Forest & Paper Products 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0

HEALTHCARE EQUIPMENT

» Olympus Corp. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Management & governance: Fair (-1 notch) Strong BBB+

Average scores for Healthcare Equipment 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0

HEALTHCARE SERVICES

» Genesis Care Pty Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B (was B+)

Average scores for Healthcare Services 3.0 4.0 4.0 6.0

HOMEBUILDERS & DEVELOPERS

» Agile Group Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BB

» Beijing Capital Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Beijing Capital Land Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BB+

» Central China Real Estate Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

» China Aoyuan Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

» China Evergrande Group [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+

Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Less than adequate B+

» China Jinmao Holdings Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» China Overseas Grand Oceans Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Adequate BBB-

» China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» China Resources Land Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» China SCE Group Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

» China South City Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate B (was B-)

» China Vanke Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Adequate BBB+

» China VAST Industrial Urban Development Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate B

» CIFI Holdings (Group) Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory (was [4]) [3] Satisfactory (was [4]) [5] Aggressive bb (was bb-) Adequate BB

» CK Asset Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Strong A

» Country Garden Holdings Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant (was [5]) bbb- (was bb) Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Positive) Adequate BB+

» DaFa Properties Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable (was [5]) [6] Vulnerable (was [5]) [6] Highly leveraged b- (was b) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate B

» Dexin China Holdings Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B

» Fantasia Holdings Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B

» Fujian Yango Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B

» Gemdale Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BB


S&P Global Ratings

8





































































































































» Greenland Holding Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [6] Highly leveraged bb Adequate BB

» Greenland Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate BB-

» Greentown China Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BB-

» Guangxi Liuzhou Dongcheng Investment & Development Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Less than adequate BB

» Guangzhou R&F Properties Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate B (was B+)

» Hengda Real Estate Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb


Liquidity: Less than adequate (-1 notch) Less than adequate B+

» Hong Yang Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B

» Hopson Development Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Less than adequate B

» Huayuan Property Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Less than adequate B

» Jiangsu Zhongnan Construction Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate B+ (was B)

» Jiayuan International Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive (was [6]) b+ (was b) Capital structure: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate B

» Jinan West City Investment and Development Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Less than adequate BBB-

» Jingrui Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B

» Jinke Property Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

» Kaisa Group Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B

» Korea Land and Housing Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate AA

» KWG Group Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Liquidity: Strong (+1 notch) Strong B+

» Landsea Green Properties Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive (was [6]) b+ (was b) Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate B

» Logan Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BB

» Longfor Group Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Nan Fung International Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb-

Capital structure: Very Positive (+2 notches)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong BBB-

» Poly Development Holding Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Powerlong Real Estate Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

» PT Kawasan Industri Jababeka Tbk. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- (was b) Less than adequate B- (was B)

» PT Lippo Karawaci Tbk. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Less than adequate B-

» PT Pakuwon Jati Tbk. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [3] Intermediate bb Adequate BB

» Redco Properties Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) b (was b+) Adequate B

» Redsun Properties Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B

» Risesun Real Estate Development Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Adequate BB-

» Road King Infrastructure Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Adequate BB-

» Ronshine China Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

» Seazen Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BB

» Seazen Holdings Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BB

» Shanghai Lingang Economic Development (Group) Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Shimao Group Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant (was [5]) bbb- (was bb) Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Positive) Adequate BB+

» Sichuan Languang Development Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

» Sinic Holdings (Group) Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B

» Sinochem Hong Kong (Group) Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A+

» Sunac China Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BB-

» Sunshine 100 China Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [6] Highly leveraged N/A CCC- (was CCC+)

» Times China Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Adequate BB-

» Urban Renewal Authority [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Strong AA+

» Xinhu Zhongbao Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Less than adequate B

» Xinyuan Real Estate Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Less than adequate B-

» Yango Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Adequate B

» Yanlord Land Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bb- (was bb) Adequate BB- (was BB)

» Zhenro Properties Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B

» Zhongliang Holdings Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

Average scores for Homebuilders & Developers 3.9 3.7 3.9 5.3

LEISURE & SPORTS

» Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bb+ (was bbb-) Strong BB+

» Crown Resorts Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb (was bbb+) Adequate BBB

» Empire Resorts Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [6] Highly leveraged b- Weak B+

» Genting Bhd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb (was bbb+) Strong BBB (was BBB+)

» Hanjin International Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [6] Highly leveraged N/A (was b-) CCC+ (was B-)

» Jinjiang International Holding Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB- (was BBB)

» Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb Adequate BB

» NagaCorp Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [3] Intermediate bb- Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate B+

» Qingdao Conson Development (Group) Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Less than adequate BBB


S&P Global Ratings

9

















































































































































































» Resorts World Las Vegas LLC [3] Intermediate risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [6] Highly leveraged b- Adequate BBB- (was BBB)

» SKYCITY Entertainment Group Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Strong BBB-

» Studio City Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Adequate BB-

» Tabcorp Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Strong BBB-

» Universal Entertainment Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged (was [4]) b (was bb-)

Capital structure: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate B (was BB-)

Average scores for Leisure & Sports 3.1 4.4 4.4 4.6

MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT

» Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Exceptional A+

» Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Meituan [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [1] Minimal bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Strong BBB-

» Project Sunshine III Pty Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [5] Aggressive b Adequate B

» Recruit Holdings Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Strong A

» TEG Pty Ltd [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Adequate B-

» Tencent Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Exceptional A+

» Tencent Music Entertainment Group [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [1] Minimal bbb Strong A

» Titan AcquisitionCo New Zealand Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Adequate B-

» Weibo Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [1] Minimal bbb Strong BBB

Average scores for Media & Entertainment 3.1 3.7 3.8 2.6

METALS & MINING DOWNSTREAM

» Aluminum Corp. of China Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Baoshan Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Adequate A-

» BlueScope Steel Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Strong BBB-

» China Baowu Steel Group Corp. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate A-

» China Hongqiao Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb


Management & governance: Weak (-1 notch) Adequate B+

» Guangyang Antai Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b Less than adequate B

» Hyundai Steel Co. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BBB

» Nippon Steel Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» POSCO [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Adequate BBB+

» Press Metal Aluminium Holdings Bhd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [4] Significant bb- Liquidity: Less than adequate (-1 notch) Less than adequate B+

» PT Aneka Tambang Tbk. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [5] Aggressive b Less than adequate B

» Tata Steel Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Adequate B+ (was BB-)

Average scores for Metals & Mining Downstream 4.0 3.5 3.7 4.1

METALS & MINING UPSTREAM

» Alumina Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Adequate BBB-

» Baosteel Resources International Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b Less than adequate BBB+

» Bao-Trans Enterprises Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [6] Highly leveraged b- Weak A-

» China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive b+ Adequate BBB-

» China Minmetals Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» China National Gold Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» CITIC Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb-


Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch)

Adequate BBB+

» Coronado Global Resources Inc. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) b (was b+) Adequate B (was B+)

» Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bb+ Adequate BB+

» Korea Resources Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Less than adequate A

» Mineral Resources Limited [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [4] Significant bb- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate B+

» Mongolian Mining Corp. [5] High risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [6] Highly leveraged b- Less than adequate B-

» Newcrest Mining Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Strong BBB

» PT Bayan Resources Tbk. [4] Moderately high risk [6] Vulnerable [6] Vulnerable [2] Modest bb- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate B+

» PT Bumi Resources Tbk. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged N/A CCC+

» Shandong Gold Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» South32 Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Strong BBB+

» Vedanta Resources Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Liquidity: Weak (-1 notch, was Less than adequate) Weak B- (was B)

» Yankuang Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate BB

» Yanzhou Coal Mining Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb Adequate BB

» Zhaojin Mining Industry Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BB+

» Zijin Mining Group Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant (was [3]) bb+ (was bbb-)

Liquidity: Less than adequate (-1 notch, was Adequate)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate BB+ (was BBB-)

Average scores for Metals & Mining Upstream 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.6

OIL & GAS DRILLING, EQUIPMENT & SERVICES


S&P Global Ratings

10






















































































































































» China Oilfield Services Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bb+ Adequate BBB+

» Geophysical Substrata Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive b+

Management & governance: Weak (-1 notch)

Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Less than adequate B-

Average scores for Oil & Gas Drilling, Equipment & Services 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5

OIL & GAS INTEGRATED, EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION

» China National Offshore Oil Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Strong A+

» China National Petroleum Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A+

» China Petrochemical Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A+

» China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Adequate A+

» CNOOC Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Strong A+

» INPEX Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Strong A-

» Korea National Oil Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) b+ (was bb) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate AA

» Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant (was [3]) bbb (was bbb+) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Petroliam Nasional Bhd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa Strong A-

» PT Medco Energi Internasional Tbk. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair (was [5]) [4] Fair (was [5]) [5] Aggressive (was [6]) bb- (was b) Liquidity: Less than adequate (-1 notch) Less than adequate B+ (was B)

» PT Pertamina (Persero) [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB

» PT Saka Energi Indonesia [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate B+ (was BB+)

» PTT Exploration and Production Public Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Strong BBB+

» PTT Public Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Adequate BBB+

» Santos Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Strong BBB-

» Woodside Petroleum Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb (was bbb+) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Strong BBB+

Average scores for Oil & Gas Integrated, Exploration & Production 3.0 2.7 2.7 3.2

OIL & GAS REFINING & MARKETING

» GS Caltex Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb- (was bbb+) Adequate BBB (was BBB+)

» Reliance Industries Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» SK Innovation Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» S-Oil Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Adequate BBB

» Thai Oil Public Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged (was [3]) b+ (was bbb-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BBB+

Average scores for Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing 4.0 2.8 3.0 3.6

OPERATING LEASING

» Avation PLC [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged (was [4]) N/A (was bb-) CCC (was BB-)

» BOC Aviation Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant (was [3]) bbb- Adequate A-

» CAR Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant N/A (was bb) CCC (was B+)

» CDB Aviation Lease Finance Designated Activity Co. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate A

» eHi Car Services Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive (was [4]) b+ (was bb-) Capital structure: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate B (was B+)

Average scores for Operating Leasing 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.8

PHARMACEUTICALS

» CSL Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A-

» Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2] Low risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [4] Significant bb- Adequate BB-

» Jubilant Pharma Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [4] Significant bb- Adequate BB-

» Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) Strong BBB+

Average scores for Pharmaceuticals 2.3 3.8 3.8 3.5

RAILROADS & PACKAGE EXPRESS

» Aurizon Operations Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Adequate BBB+

» Australian Postal Corp. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A+

» Brambles Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Strong BBB+

» Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» IBC Capital Ltd. [2] Low risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Less than adequate B

» New Zealand Post Ltd. [2] Low risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A

» Pacific National Holdings Pty Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB-

» S.F. Holding Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Adequate A-

» Singapore Post Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

Average scores for Railroads & Package Express 2.2 3.2 3.2 2.9

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANIES

» Aeon Mall Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB

» AMP Capital Shopping Centre Fund [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Financial policy: Negative (-2 notches) Adequate A


S&P Global Ratings

11




































































































































» AMP Capital Wholesale Office Fund [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Strong A-

» Australian Prime Property Fund Retail [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory (was [2]) [3] Satisfactory (was [2]) [2] Modest bbb+ (was a) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A- (was A+)

» BWP Trust [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa-

Financial policy: Negative (-2 notches)

Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» CapitaLand Commercial Trust [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A- (was BBB+)

» CapitaLand Mall Trust [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [4] Significant a- Adequate A-

» Charter Hall Prime Office Fund [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» Dalian Wanda Commercial Management Group Co. Ltd [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [5]) bbb (was bb) Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BB+ (was BB)

» Defence Housing Australia [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Strong AA+

» Dexus [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a


Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» DEXUS Wholesale Property Fund [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Financial policy: Negative (-2 notches) Adequate A

» Frasers Centrepoint Trust [2] Low risk [2] Strong (was [3]) [2] Strong (was [3]) [4] Significant (was [2]) bbb (was bbb+) Adequate BBB (was BBB+)

» Frontier Real Estate Investment Corp. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Adequate A+

» GLP Pte. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory (was [2]) [3] Satisfactory (was [2]) [3] Intermediate bbb (was bbb+) Adequate BBB

» Goodman Australia Industrial Partnership [2] Low risk [2] Strong (was [3]) [2] Strong (was [3]) [3] Intermediate bbb+ (was bbb) Strong BBB+

» Goodman Australia Partnership [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Financial policy: Negative (-3 notches) Strong BBB

» Goodman Group [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Financial policy: Negative (-2 notches) Strong BBB+

» Goodman Hong Kong Logistics Partnership [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong BBB+

» Goodman Property Trust [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» GPT Group [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A

» GPT Wholesale Office Fund [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Financial policy: Negative (-3 notches) Adequate A-

» GPT Wholesale Shopping Centre Fund [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb (was bbb+) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+ (was A-)

» Hongkong Land Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Strong A

» IFC Development Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Adequate A

» Investa Commercial Property Fund [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a


Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» Japan Prime Realty Investment Corp. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Adequate A

» Japan Real Estate Investment Corp. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Adequate A+

» Japan Retail Fund Investment Corp. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Adequate A

» Kiwi Property Group Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» Link Real Estate Investment Trust [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Strong A

» Mitsubishi Estate Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Adequate A+

» Mitsui Fudosan Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A

» Nippon Accommodations Fund Inc. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Adequate A+

» Nippon Building Fund Inc. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Adequate A+

» Nomura Real Estate Master Fund Inc. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Adequate A

» QIC Property Fund [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A

» QIC Shopping Centre Fund [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Adequate A-

» RCS Trust [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate A-

» Red Star Macalline Group Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Liquidity: Less than adequate (-1 notch) Less than adequate BB+

» Scentre Group [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a Strong A

» Stockland [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» Swire Pacific Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Adequate A-

» Vicinity Centres [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A

» Yuexiu Real Estate Investment Trust [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB-

Average scores for Real Estate Investment Companies 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.4

REGULATED UTILITIES

» Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» APT Pipelines Ltd. [1] Very low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive bbb Adequate BBB

» ATCO Gas Australia LP [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [4] Significant a- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Ausgrid Finance Pty Ltd. [1] Very low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive bbb Adequate BBB

» AusNet Services Ltd. [1] Very low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [4] Significant a- Adequate A-

» Australian Gas Networks Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [4] Significant a- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» Beijing Enterprises Holdings Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB+

» Beijing Gas Group Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Adequate A-

» China General Nuclear Power Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Adequate A-

» China Huadian Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» China Longyuan Power Group Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk (was [2]) [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» China Oil and Gas Group Ltd. [2] Low risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb Adequate BB

» China Resources Gas Group Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» China Resources Power Holdings Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB

» China Southern Power Grid Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A+


S&P Global Ratings

12

















































































































































































» China Three Gorges Corp. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A

» China Water Affairs Group Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bb+ Adequate BB+

» CK Infrastructure Holdings Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a+


Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A

» CLP Holdings Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A

» CLP Power Hong Kong Ltd. [1] Very low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [2] Modest aa Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A+

» DBNGP Trust [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Electric Power Development Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a Adequate A

» Energy Partnership (Gas) Pty Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [4] Significant a-


Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» ENN Energy Holdings Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB (was BBB+)

» ETSA Utilities Finance Pty Ltd. [1] Very low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» Greenko Energy Holdings [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate B+

» HK Electric Investments Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [4] Significant a- Adequate A-

» Hongkong Electric Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [4] Significant a- Adequate A-

» JERA Co. Inc. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Adequate A-

» Korea East-West Power Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [4] Fair [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate AA

» Korea Electric Power Corp. [1] Very low risk [3] Satisfactory [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate AA

» Korea Gas Corp. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive bbb Adequate AA

» Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [4] Fair [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate AA

» Korea Midland Power Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [4] Fair [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate AA

» Korea South East Power Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [4] Fair [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate AA

» Korea Water Resources Corp. [1] Very low risk [3] Satisfactory [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate AA

» Korea Western Power Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [4] Fair [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate AA

» Kunlun Energy Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A

» Manila Electric Co. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Strong BBB-

» NHPC Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB-

» NTPC Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Okinawa Electric Power Co. Inc. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [2] Modest aa Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A+

» Osaka Gas Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [2] Modest aa Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate AA-

» Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority [5] High risk [4] Fair [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate B-

» Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero) PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara [2] Low risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Power Assets Holdings Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [2] Modest aa Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A

» Power Grid Corp. of India Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Powerco Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive bbb Adequate BBB

» PT Perusahaan Gas Negara Tbk. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive (was [3]) bb- (was bb+) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» ReNew Power Ltd. Restricted Group [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BB-

» ReNew Power Pte. Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BB-

» SGSP (Australia) Assets Pty Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [4] Significant a- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» Shanghai Electric Power Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Adequate BBB

» Shenergy (Group) Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A

» Shikoku Electric Power Co. Inc. [1] Very low risk [3] Satisfactory [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» Shizuoka Gas Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [3] Satisfactory [2] Strong [2] Modest a Adequate A

» Singapore Power Ltd. [1] Very low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a+ Adequate AA

» SP PowerAssets Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate AA

» State Grid Corp. of China [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Adequate A+

» State Grid International Development Ltd. [1] Very low risk [3] Satisfactory [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A

» State Power Investment Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» Taiwan Power Co. [1] Very low risk [3] Satisfactory [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Adequate AA-

» Tenaga Nasional Bhd. [1] Very low risk [4] Fair [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB+

» The Hong Kong and China Gas Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [3] Satisfactory [2] Strong [3] Intermediate a- Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A

» Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. [1] Very low risk [4] Fair [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Less than adequate BB+

» Tokyo Gas Co. Ltd. [1] Very low risk [2] Strong [1] Excellent [2] Modest aa Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate AA-

» Towngas China Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bb+ Adequate BBB+

» Transpower New Zealand Ltd. [1] Very low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate AA-

» Vector Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Adequate BBB

» Victoria Power Networks (Finance) Pty Ltd. [1] Very low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [4] Significant (was [3]) a- (was a+) Adequate A-

» Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB-

» Zheneng Jinjiang Environment Holding Co. Ltd. [2] Low risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) b (was bb-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Less than adequate BB-

Average scores for Regulated Utilities 1.7 2.6 2.2 3.9

RETAIL & RESTAURANTS

» Aeon Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Adequate BBB


S&P Global Ratings

13

















































































































































































» Beijing Easyhome Investment Holding Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BB+

» China Tourism Group Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Strong A-

» China Travel Service (Holdings) Hong Kong Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Strong A-

» Coles Group Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Strong BBB+

» E-MART Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+ Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Fast Retailing Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Exceptional A

» Future Retail Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive N/A CCC-

» Golden Eagle Retail Group Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb Adequate BB

» Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Diversification effect: Moderate (+1 notch) Strong A+

» JD.com Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [1] Minimal bbb Strong BBB

» Maoye International Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [6] Highly leveraged b Liquidity: Weak (-1 notch, was Less than adequate) Weak B- (was B)

» PT Astra International Tbk. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Captive finance: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Seven & i Holdings Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [2] Modest aa Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate AA-

» Vipshop Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [1] Minimal bbb Strong BBB

» Wesfarmers Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A-

» Woolworths Group Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Adequate BBB

» Xinjiang Guanghui Industry Investment (Group) Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Capital structure: Negative (-1 notch) Less than adequate B

Average scores for Retail & Restaurants 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.3

SPECIALTY CHEMICALS

» China National Bluestar (Group) Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) b+ (was bb) Adequate BBB

» China National Chemical Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+


Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Incitec Pivot Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Strong BBB

» Orica Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Strong BBB

» Yingde Gases Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [5] Aggressive bb- Adequate BB-

Average scores for Specialty Chemicals 2.8 3.2 3.2 4.6

TECHNOLOGY - HARDWARE & SEMICONDUCTORS

» AGC Inc. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Diversification effect: Moderate (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» Canon Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory (was [2]) [3] Satisfactory (was [2]) [1] Minimal a (was aa-) Adequate A (was A+)

» Fujifilm Holdings Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Adequate AA-

» Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Strong A-

» Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [2] Modest a Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Strong A-

» Lenovo Group Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Adequate BBB-

» LG Electronics Inc. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b (was b-) Adequate B (was B-)

» Panasonic Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Diversification effect: Moderate (+1 notch) Strong A-

» Renesas Electronics Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Adequate BBB-

» Ricoh Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Exceptional AA-

» Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Sharp Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive b+ Less than adequate BB-

» SK Hynix Inc. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Adequate BBB-

» Sony Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Strong A-

» Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [1] Excellent [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Strong AA-

» TDK Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» Xiaomi Corp. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [2] Modest bbb- Strong BBB-

Average scores for Technology - Hardware & Semiconductors 3.8 3.1 3.3 2.3

TECHNOLOGY - SOFTWARE & SERVICES

» Fujitsu Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Strong BBB+

» Genpact Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Strong BBB-

» HCL Technologies Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Strong A-

» Infosys Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Strong A-

» MYOB Invest Co Pty Ltd [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b- (was b) Adequate B- (was B)

» NEC Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Adequate BBB-

» Nomura Research Institute Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Strong A

» Rakuten Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Wipro Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a- Strong A-

Average scores for Technology - Software & Services 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.6


S&P Global Ratings

14

























































































































































TELECOM & CABLE

» 21Vianet Group Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [6] Highly leveraged b Adequate B (was B+)

» Advanced Info Service Public Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» Axiata Group Bhd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb (was bbb+) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BBB+

» Bharti Airtel Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB-

» China Mobile Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa Exceptional A+

» Chorus Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Adequate BBB

» Chunghwa Telecom Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa Strong AA

» CK Hutchison Group Telecom Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate A-

» CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb

Diversification effect: Significant (+2 notches)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong A

» Far EasTone Telecommunications Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [1]) bbb- (was a-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BBB- (was BBB)

» Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Adequate BBB

» KT Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate AA-

» NTT Docomo Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate AA-

» PLDT Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Adequate BBB+

» PT Profesional Telekomunikasi Indonesia [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB

» PT Tower Bersama Infrastructure Tbk. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [6] Highly leveraged bb Adequate BB

» Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ (was a-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A (was A+)

» Singtel Optus Pty Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb (was bbb+) Adequate A- (was A)

» SK Broadband Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Adequate A-

» SK Telecom Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» Spark New Zealand Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest (was [1]) bbb+ (was a-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate A-

» Telekom Malaysia Bhd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A-

» Telstra Corp. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong (was [3]) [2] Strong (was [3]) [3] Intermediate (was [2]) bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

Average scores for Telecom & Cable 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.9

TRANSPORTATION CYCLICAL

» MISC Bhd. [5] High risk [3] Satisfactory [4] Fair [3] Intermediate bb+ Adequate BBB+

» PT Buana Lintas Lautan Tbk. [5] High risk [5] Weak [5] Weak [5] Aggressive b+ Less than adequate B+

» The Kowloon Motor Bus Co. (1933) Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a Strong A

» Wan Hai Lines Ltd. [5] High risk [4] Fair [5] Weak [3] Intermediate bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BB+

Average scores for Transportation Cyclical 4.8 3.8 4.3 3.0

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

» Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» Adelaide Airport Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bb+ (was bbb)

Financial policy: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Strong BBB

» Airport Authority Hong Kong [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [4] Significant (was [2]) a- (was aa) Adequate AA+

» Airservices Australia [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant (was [2]) bbb (was a+) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate AAA

» Arc Infrastructure Pty Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Auckland International Airport Ltd. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Strong A-

» Aurizon Network Pty Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Adequate BBB+

» Australia Pacific Airports Corp. Ltd. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bbb (was a-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Strong BBB+ (was A-)

» Beijing Infrastructure Investment Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A+

» Brisbane Airport Corp. Pty Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bb+ (was bbb)


Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Strong BBB

» Central Japan Railway Co. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate (was [2]) a+ (was aa) Adequate A+ (was AA-)

» China Merchants Port Holdings Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive (was [3]) bb+ (was bbb+) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BBB

» Christchurch International Airport Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant (was [3]) bbb (was bbb+) Adequate BBB+ (was A-)

» Delhi International Airport Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged (was [5]) b+ (was bb) Adequate B+ (was BB)

» East Japan Railway Co. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate (was [2]) a+ (was aa) Adequate A+ (was AA-)

» Gansu Provincial Highway Aviation Tourism Investment Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged (was [4]) b+ (was bb+) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BB- (was BB+)

» Hutchison Port Holdings Trust [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [3] Intermediate bbb+ Adequate A-

» Korea Expressway Corp. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive bbb Adequate AA

» Korea Rail Network Authority [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [6] Highly leveraged bb Adequate AA

» Lianyungang Port Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Less than adequate BBB-

» MTR Corp. Ltd. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [3] Intermediate a (was a+) Adequate AA+

» NSW Ports Finance Co. Pty. Ltd [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive bbb Adequate BBB

» Perth Airport Pty Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive bb+

Financial policy: Positive (+1 notch)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB

» Port of Tauranga Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [2] Modest bbb+ Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» PSA International Pte. Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [1] Minimal aa- Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Strong AA


S&P Global Ratings

15





































































































































































» PT Jasa Marga (Persero) Tbk. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [6] Highly leveraged b+ Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Less than adequate BB- (was BB+)

» PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II (Persero) [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB- (was BBB)

» PT Pelabuhan Indonesia III (Persero) [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bb+ Adequate BBB-

» QPH Finance Co. Pty. Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [4] Significant bbb Adequate BBB

» Shanghai International Port (Group) Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [2] Modest a+ Adequate A+

» Shenzhen Expressway Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Adequate BBB

» Shenzhen International Holdings Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive (was [3]) bb (was bbb-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BBB

» SMRT Corp. Ltd. [2] Low risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Strong AA+

» Southern Cross Airports Corp. Holdings Ltd. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bbb (was a-)

Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was

Negative) Strong BBB+

» Taoyuan International Airport Corp. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [4] Significant (was [3]) a- (was a) Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate A+

» Transurban Finance Co. Pty Ltd. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [5] Aggressive bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Strong BBB+

» Transurban Queensland Finance Pty Ltd. [2] Low risk [1] Excellent [1] Excellent [6] Highly leveraged bb+ (was bbb-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Strong BBB

» Wellington International Airport Ltd. [2] Low risk [2] Strong [2] Strong [5] Aggressive (was [3]) bb+ (was bbb+)


Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Adequate BBB (was BBB+)

» Yuexiu Transport Infrastructure Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BBB-

Average scores for Transportation Infrastructure 2.4 2.1 2.1 4.2

UNREGULATED POWER & GAS

» China Huaneng Group Co.Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» Contact Energy Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB

» Energy Developments Pty Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [4] Fair [4] Fair [4] Significant bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB-

» EnergyAustralia Holdings Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [1] Minimal a-


Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Neutral) Strong BBB+

» Genesis Energy Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Strong BBB+

» Global Power Synergy Public Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive (was [6]) bb (was b+) Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch, was Positive) Adequate BBB-

» Guangdong Energy Group Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate A-

» Huaneng Power International Inc. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive bb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate A-

» Mercury NZ Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB+

» Meridian Energy Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Adequate BBB+

» Origin Energy Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [2] Strong [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Strong BBB

» PT Cikarang Listrindo Tbk. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb- Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) Adequate BB+

» Ratch Group Public Co. Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [3] Intermediate bbb Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) Adequate BBB+

» SK E&S Co. Ltd. [3] Intermediate risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [4] Significant bbb- Adequate BBB- (was BBB)

» Snowy Hydro Ltd. [4] Moderately high risk [3] Satisfactory [3] Satisfactory [5] Aggressive (was [4]) bb (was bbb-) Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch, was Neutral) Strong BBB+ (was A-)

Average scores for Unregulated Power & Gas 3.7 3.0 3.1 3.6


S&P Global Ratings

16

























































































Managing Director, Head of Analytics & Research, Corporate Ratings

+44-20-7176-7226, [email protected]

Related Criteria:

Related Research:

Primary Contact:

+852-2533-3553, [email protected]

Lekha Prabhakar

[email protected]

Eunice Tan

Terry E Chan, CFA

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Regional Credit Conditions Chair, APAC


Senior Research Fellow


Secondary Contacts:

Head of Corporate Credit Research


Research Associate, NA

Gregg Lemos-Stein, CFA

Gareth Williams

Yucheng Zheng

Related Criteria and Research



-8

-9

-10

-11

-12

-13

-14

-15

-16

-17

-18

-19

1

2

3

4

5

6

Copyright ( c ) 2020 by S&P Global Ratings, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of S&P Global Ratings or its affiliates (collectively, S&P GLOBAL). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P GLOBAL and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P GLOBAL Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P GLOBAL Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P GLOBAL PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Global Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P Global's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P Global assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P Global does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P Global has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P Global does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in anotherjurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P Global reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Global Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P Global keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P Global may have information that is not available to other S&P Global business units. S&P Global has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.S&P Global may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P Global reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses.

S&P Global's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription) and www.spcapitaliq.com (subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P Global publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P Global to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: [email protected].


corporate rating component scores - s&p global

Documents