Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark one)

		QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002

OR

		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

	For the transition period from ___________________to___________________

1-14037

Commission file number

MOODY’S CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:   (212) 553-0300

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   Yes   No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date:

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MOODY’S CORPORATION

INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

2

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MOODY’S CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED)
(AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed
consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

MOODY’S CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the
condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

MOODY’S CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the
condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

MOODY’S CORPORATION

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

1.     BACKGROUND AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

Moody’s Corporation (“Moody’s” or the “Company”), a global credit rating, research and risk analysis firm, publishes credit opinions, research and ratings on fixed-income securities, issuers of securities and other credit obligations. The Company publishes rating opinions on a broad range of credit obligations issued in domestic and international markets, including various corporate and governmental obligations, structured finance securities and commercial paper programs. The Company also publishes investor-oriented credit research including in-depth research on major issuers, industry studies, special comments and credit opinion handbooks. Moody’s KMV, which consists of the combined business of KMV LLC and KMV Corporation (“KMV”) (acquired in April 2002) and Moody’s Risk Management Services, develops and distributes credit risk management software and other related products and services used by banks and other financial institutions in their commercial lending, portfolio management and other activities. It also provides modeling tools, analytics, credit education materials, seminars, computer-based lending simulations and other products and services.

The Company operated as part of The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation (“Old D&B”) until September 30, 2000 (the “Distribution Date”), when Old D&B separated into two publicly traded companies—Moody’s Corporation and The New D&B Corporation (“New D&B”). At that time, Old D&B distributed to its shareholders shares of New D&B stock. New D&B comprised the business of Old D&B’s Dun & Bradstreet operating company (the “D&B Business”). The remaining business of Old D&B consisted solely of the business of providing ratings and related research and risk management services (the “Moody’s Business”) and was renamed “Moody’s Corporation.” The method by which Old D&B distributed to its shareholders its shares of New D&B stock is hereinafter referred to as the “2000 Distribution.”

These interim financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and related notes in the Company’s 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 22, 2002. The results of interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for the full year or any subsequent period. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation of financial position, results of operations and cash flows at the dates and for the periods presented have been included.

2.     RECONCILIATION OF SHARES USED IN COMPUTING EARNINGS PER SHARE

Below is a reconciliation of basic weighted average shares outstanding to diluted weighted average shares outstanding:

There were no antidilutive options to purchase shares of common stock for the three month or six month periods ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively.

3.     ACQUISITIONS

KMV

On April 12, 2002, Moody’s acquired the business comprising KMV, which provides quantitative estimates of credit default risk and values of credit sensitive financial instruments, and develops and distributes credit risk management software and other related

6

Table of Contents

products and services used by banks, money managers, and other financial institutions in their commercial lending, portfolio management and other activities, in an all cash transaction for $210 million. The results of KMV have been included in Moody’s consolidated financial statements since that date. The acquisition will expand the product offerings and customer base of Moody’s credit risk assessment business, which was previously operated by Moody’s Risk Management Services.

The purchase price of $210 million was funded by using $127 million of Moody’s cash on hand and $81 million of borrowings under Moody’s existing bank credit lines, with the remaining $2 million withheld subject to the finalization of a closing date working capital adjustment. Prior to June 30, 2002, the Company repaid the borrowings under the bank credit lines.

The acquisition has been accounted for as a purchase. Shown below is the preliminary purchase price allocation, which summarizes the estimated fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date of acquisition. The allocated purchase price includes $3.3 million in Moody’s transaction costs, primarily professional fees incurred in connection with the acquisition. Management does not believe that the final purchase price allocation will be materially different from the preliminary allocation.

Preliminary Purchase Price Allocation
At April 12, 2002
(dollars in millions)

In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”, the $117.3 million of acquired goodwill will not be amortized. See Note 4 for further information. The entire goodwill amount has been assigned to the Moody’s KMV segment. The excess of the purchase price over the acquired net assets is expected to be amortized over 15 years for tax purposes. In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 4, “Applicability of FASB Statement No. 2 to Business Combinations Accounted for by the Purchase Method”, the $1.1 million allocated to acquired in-process research and development was written off immediately following the acquisition and is included in operating, selling, general and administrative expenses for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2002. Current assets includes acquired cash of $7.2 million. Other assets includes acquired software of $16.0 million, with a life of 5 years.

The following unaudited pro forma consolidated financial information, for the three month and six month periods ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, illustrates the effect of the acquisition of KMV as if it had been consummated as of the beginning of the respective periods, after giving effect to the following adjustments: (i) elimination of non-recurring transaction related charges resulting from the acquisition; (ii) amortization of acquired intangible assets and software; (iii) Moody’s financing costs for the transaction, consisting of interest expense that would have been incurred on the $81 million of bank borrowings and interest income that would have been foregone on the balance of the purchase price; and (iv) related income tax effects.

The unaudited pro forma consolidated financial information should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Form 8-K/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2002.

The unaudited pro forma consolidated financial information is presented for comparative purposes only and is not intended to be indicative of the actual consolidated results of operations that would have been achieved had the transaction been consummated as of the dates indicated above, nor does it purport to indicate results that may be attained in the future.

7

Table of Contents

Korea Investors Service

In August 1998, the Company made a 10% cost-basis investment in Korea Investors Service (“KIS”), a Korean rating agency. In December 2001, the Company entered into a definitive agreement to increase its investment to just over 50%, at a cost of $9.6 million with contingent payments of up to $5.4 million based on future earnings of KIS. The purchase price of $9.6 million was held in escrow pending regulatory approval in Korea, which was received in January 2002.

The investment was recorded at cost through December 31, 2001; starting in January 2002, the Company consolidated the results of KIS in its financial statements. The minority shareholder’s interest has been included in other long-term liabilities.

The purchase price allocation resulted in amortizable intangible assets of $2.9 million, with a weighted average life of 5.6 years, and goodwill of $1.9 million. See Note 4 for further information.

4.     GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

Effective as of January 1, 2002, the Company adopted SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”. Under SFAS No. 142, goodwill and other intangible assets with indefinite lives are no longer amortized but are reviewed annually for recoverability, or more frequently if impairment indicators arise. Transitional goodwill impairment testing must be completed within the first six months after adoption. This testing requires the Company to estimate the fair value of its applicable identified reporting units based on the present value of the expected future cash flows of the units. If the book value of a reporting unit exceeds the estimated fair value of the unit, a write-down of goodwill in the amount of such excess book value is required. As of June 30, 2002, the Company has completed its transitional goodwill impairment testing. The estimated fair values of the reporting units exceeded their book values and therefore no write-down of goodwill was required as of June 30, 2002.

The following table reflects net income and basic and diluted earnings per share giving effect to SFAS No. 142 as if it were adopted on January 1, 2001:

8

Table of Contents

In conjunction with the April 12, 2002 acquisition of KMV, Moody’s acquired $117.3 million of goodwill and the following intangible assets: (i) $50.7 million related to the customer list; (ii) $25.5 million of trade secrets; and (iii) $6.3 million of other intangible assets. See Note 3 for further information.

The following table summarizes the activity in goodwill for the periods indicated:

The following table summarizes intangible assets subject to amortization at the dates indicated:

Amortization expense for intangible assets for the six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001 was $1.9 million and $0.5 million, respectively.

Estimated amortization expense through 2006 for intangible assets subject to amortization is as follows:

		Years ending December 31,
		(in millions)
			2002			$	5.3
			2003			$	6.9
			2004			$	6.9
			2005			$	6.5
			2006			$	6.2

9

Table of Contents

As of June 30, 2002, $25.5 million in trade secrets acquired in the KMV acquisition were not subject to amortization. Current circumstances continue to support an indefinite useful life for the trade secrets asset as of June 30, 2002.

5.     INDEBTEDNESS

In connection with the 2000 Distribution, Moody’s was allocated $195.5 million of debt at September 30, 2000. Moody’s funded this debt with borrowings under a $160 million unsecured bank revolving credit facility and a bank bridge line of credit.

On October 3, 2000 the Company issued $300 million of notes payable (the “Notes”) in a private placement. The cash proceeds from the Notes were used in part to repay the outstanding balance on the revolving credit facility and to repay the bridge line of credit. The Notes have a five-year term and bear interest at an annual rate of 7.61%, payable semi-annually. In the event that Moody’s pays all or part of the note in advance of its maturity (the “prepaid principal”), such prepayment will be subject to a penalty calculated based on the excess, if any, of the discounted value, as defined in the agreement, of the remaining scheduled payments over the prepaid principal.

The revolving credit facility (the “Facility”), which was undrawn as of June 30, 2002, consists of an $80 million 5-year facility and an $80 million 364-day facility. Interest on borrowings under the 5-year facility is payable at rates that are based on the London InterBank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus a premium that can range between 18 basis points and 50 basis points depending on the Company’s ratio of total indebtedness to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), as defined in the related agreement. At June 30, 2002, such premium was 22 basis points. Interest on borrowings under the 364-day facility is payable at rates that are based on LIBOR plus a premium of 30.5 basis points. The Company also pays facility fees, regardless of borrowing activity under the Facility. The fees for the 5-year facility can range from 7 basis points to 12.5 basis points depending on the Company’s ratio of total indebtedness to EBITDA, and were 8 basis points at June 30, 2002. The fees for the 364-day facility are 7 basis points. As noted below and more fully discussed in Note 3, in April 2002, Moody’s used this Facility to initially fund a portion of the purchase price for the KMV acquisition; amounts outstanding under the Facility were repaid prior to June 30, 2002. The Company is currently in discussions with the lenders to renew the 364-day facility.

The Notes and the Facility (the “Agreements”) contain covenants that, among other things, restrict the ability of the Company and its subsidiaries, without the approval of the lenders, to engage in mergers, consolidations, asset sales and sale-leaseback transactions or to incur liens, and require the Company to maintain certain financial ratios. The Notes and the Facility also contain financial covenants that, among other things, require the Company to maintain an interest coverage ratio, as defined in the Agreements, of not less than 3 to 1, and a ratio of total indebtedness to EBITDA, as defined in the Agreements, of not more than 4 to 1. At June 30, 2002 the Company was in compliance with such covenants. If an event of default were to occur (as defined in the Agreements) and was not remedied by the Company within the stipulated timeframe, an acceleration of the Notes and restrictions on the use of the Facility could occur.

6.     CONTINGENCIES

Moody’s is involved in legal and tax proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Management periodically assesses the Company’s liabilities and contingencies in connection with these matters, based upon the latest information available. For those matters where the probable amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company believes it has recorded appropriate reserves in the consolidated financial statements. In other instances, because of the uncertainties related to both the probable outcome and amount or range of loss, management is unable to make a reasonable estimate of a liability, if any. As additional information becomes available, the Company adjusts its assessments and estimates of such liabilities accordingly.

Based on its review of the latest information available, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability of the Company in connection with pending legal and tax proceedings, claims and litigation will not have a material adverse effect on Moody’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, subject to the contingencies described below.

In order to understand the Company’s exposure to the potential liabilities described below, it is important to understand the relationship between Moody’s and New D&B, and the relationship among New D&B and its predecessors and other parties who, through various corporate reorganizations and related contractual commitments, have assumed varying degrees of responsibility with respect to such matters.

In November 1996, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation through a spin-off separated into three separate public companies: The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, ACNielsen Corporation (“ACNielsen”) and Cognizant Corporation (“Cognizant”) (the “1996 Distribution”).

10

Table of Contents

In June 1998, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation though a spin-off separated into two separate public companies: The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and R.H. Donnelley Corporation (“Donnelley”) (the “1998 Distribution”). During 1998, Cognizant through a spin-off separated into two separate public companies: IMS Health Incorporated (“IMS Health”) and Nielsen Media Research, Inc. (“NMR”). In September 2000, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation (“Old D&B”) through a spin-off separated into two separate public companies: New D&B and Moody’s, as further described in Note 1, Background and Basis of Presentation.

Information Resources, Inc.

On July 29, 1996, Information Resources, Inc. (“IRI”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants the corporation then known as The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, A.C. Nielsen Company (a subsidiary of ACNielsen) and IMS International, Inc. (a subsidiary of the company then known as Cognizant). At the time of the filing of the complaint, each of the other defendants was a subsidiary of The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation.

The complaint alleges various violations of United States antitrust laws, including purported violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint also alleges a claim of tortious interference with a contract and a claim of tortious interference with a prospective business relationship. These claims relate to the acquisition by defendants of Survey Research Group Limited (“SRG”). IRI alleges SRG violated an alleged agreement with IRI when it agreed to be acquired by the defendants and that the defendants induced SRG to breach that agreement.

IRI’s complaint alleges damages in excess of $350 million, which amount IRI asked to be trebled under antitrust laws. IRI also seeks punitive damages of an unspecified amount.

On October 28, 1996, in connection with the 1996 Distribution, Cognizant, ACNielsen and The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation entered into an Indemnity and Joint Defense Agreement (the “Indemnity and Joint Defense Agreement”) pursuant to which they have agreed (i) to certain arrangements allocating potential liabilities (“IRI Liabilities”) that may arise out of or in connection with the IRI action and (ii) to conduct a joint defense of such action. In particular, the Indemnity and Joint Defense Agreement provides that ACNielsen will assume exclusive liability for IRI Liabilities up to a maximum amount to be calculated at such time such liabilities, if any, become payable (the “ACN Maximum Amount”), and that The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and Cognizant will share liability equally for any amounts in excess of the ACN Maximum Amount. The ACN Maximum Amount will be determined by an investment banking firm as the maximum amount that ACNielsen is able to pay after giving effect to (i) any plan submitted by such investment bank that is designed to maximize the claims-paying ability of ACNielsen without impairing the investment banking firm’s ability to deliver a viability opinion (but which will not require any action requiring shareholder approval), and (ii) payment of related fees and expenses. For these purposes, financial viability means the ability of ACNielsen, after giving effect to such plan, the payment of related fees and expenses and the payment of the ACN Maximum Amount, to pay its debts as they become due and to finance the current and anticipated operating and capital requirements of its business, as reconstituted by such plan, for two years from the date any such plan is expected to be implemented. On February 19, 2001, ACNielsen announced that it had merged with VNU N.V. Pursuant to the Indemnity and Joint Defense Agreement, VNU is to be included with ACNielsen for purposes of determining the ACN Maximum Amount, and VNU assumed ACNielsen’s liabilities under that agreement.

In connection with the 1998 Distribution, Old D&B and Donnelley entered into an agreement (the “1998 Distribution Agreement”) whereby Old D&B assumed all potential liabilities of Donnelley arising from the IRI action and agreed to indemnify Donnelley in connection with such potential liabilities.

As a result of their 1998 separation and pursuant to the related distribution agreement, IMS Health and NMR are each jointly and severally liable for all Cognizant liabilities under the Indemnity and Joint Defense Agreement.

Under the terms of the 2000 Distribution, New D&B undertook to be jointly and severally liable with Moody’s for Old D&B’s obligations to Donnelley under the 1998 Distribution Agreement, including any liabilities arising under the Indemnity and Joint Defense Agreement. However, as between themselves, each of New D&B and Moody’s will be responsible for 50% of any payments to be made with respect to the IRI action pursuant to the 1998 Distribution Agreement, including legal fees or expenses related thereto.

Management is unable to predict at this time the final outcome of the IRI action or whether the resolution of this matter could materially affect Moody’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position. As such, no amount in respect of this matter has been accrued in the financial statements of the Company.

11

Table of Contents

L’Association Francaise des Porteurs d’ Emprunts Russes

On June 20, 2001 a summons was served in an action brought by L’Association Francaise des Porteurs d’ Emprunts Russes (“AFPER”) against Moody’s France SA (a subsidiary of the Company) and filed in the Court of First Instance of Paris, France. In this suit, AFPER, a group of holders of bonds issued by the Russian government prior to the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, makes claims against Moody’s France SA and Standard & Poor’s SA for lack of diligence and prudence in their ratings of Russia and Russian debt since 1996. AFPER alleges that, by failing to take into account the post-Revolutionary repudiation of pre-Revolutionary Czarist debt by the Soviet government in rating Russia and new issues of Russian debt beginning in 1996, the rating agencies enabled the Russian Federation to issue new debt without repaying the old obligations of the Czarist government. Alleging joint and several liability, AFPER seeks damages of approximately $3.0 billion plus legal costs. Moody’s believes the allegations lack legal or factual merit and intends to vigorously contest the action.

Tax Matters

Old D&B and its predecessors entered into global tax planning initiatives in the normal course of business, including through tax-free restructurings of both their foreign and domestic operations. These initiatives are subject to normal review by tax authorities.

Pursuant to a series of agreements, as between themselves, IMS Health and NMR are jointly and severally liable to pay one-half, and New D&B and Moody’s are jointly and severally liable to pay the other half, of any payments for taxes and accrued interest resulting from unfavorable IRS rulings on certain tax matters (excluding the matter described below as “Amortization Expense Deductions” for which New D&B and Moody’s are solely responsible) and certain other potential tax liabilities after New D&B and/or Moody’s pays the first $137 million, which amount was paid in connection with the matter described below as “Utilization of Capital Losses”.

In connection with the 2000 Distribution and pursuant to the terms of the related Distribution Agreement, New D&B and Moody’s have, between themselves, agreed to each be financially responsible for 50% of any potential liabilities that may arise to the extent such potential liabilities are not directly attributable to their respective business operations.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, three specific tax matters are discussed below.

Royalty Expense Deductions

During the second quarter of 2002, New D&B received a Notice of Proposed Adjustment from the IRS with respect to a transaction entered into in 1993. In this notice the IRS proposed to disallow certain royalty expense deductions claimed by Old D&B on its 1994, 1995 and 1996 tax returns. New D&B disagrees with the position taken by the IRS in its Notice and has filed a responsive brief to this effect with the IRS. If the IRS were to issue a formal assessment consistent with the Notice and were to prevail in its position, then New D&B would be required to pay the assessment. If New D&B were to challenge the assessment in U.S. District Court rather than in U.S. Tax Court, then a payment of the disputed amount would be required in connection with such challenge. Should any such payments be made by New D&B, then pursuant to the terms of the Distribution Agreement, Moody’s would have to pay to New D&B its 50% share. The Company estimates that its share of the potential current liability for this transaction could be up to approximately $45 million (including interest, net of tax benefits). Moody’s also could be obligated for future interest payments on its share of such liability.

Amortization Expense Deductions

The IRS has requested from New D&B documentation with respect to a transaction executed in 1997 which could result in amortization expense deductions from 1997 through 2012. It is possible that the IRS could ultimately challenge these deductions and that New D&B could make payments to the IRS related to previously claimed deductions. In that event, Moody’s would be required to pay to New D&B its 50% share of New D&B’s payments to the IRS. In addition, should New D&B discontinue claiming the amortization deductions on future tax returns, Moody’s would be required to repay to New D&B an amount equal to the discounted value of its 50% share of the related future tax benefits. New D&B had paid the discounted value of future tax benefits from this transaction in cash to Moody’s at the Distribution Date. Management estimates that the Company’s current potential exposure related to this matter is $81 million (including interest, net of tax benefits). This exposure could increase by approximately $2 million to $4 million per year, depending on actions that the IRS may take with respect to assessments and on whether New D&B continues claiming the amortization deductions on its tax returns.

Utilization of Capital Losses

The IRS has completed its review of the utilization of certain capital losses generated during 1989 and 1990. On June 26, 2000, the IRS, as part of its audit process, issued a formal assessment with respect to the utilization of these capital losses and Old D&B responded

12

Table of Contents

by filing a petition for a refund in the U.S. District Court on September 21, 2000, after the payments described below were made.

On May 12, 2000, an amended tax return was filed for the 1989 and 1990 tax periods, which reflected $561.6 million of tax and interest due. Old D&B paid the IRS approximately $349.3 million of this amount on May 12, 2000. IMS Health informed Old D&B that it paid to the IRS approximately $212.3 million on May 17, 2000. The payments were made to the IRS to stop further interest from accruing, and New D&B is contesting the IRS’ assessment. New D&B has indicated that it would also contest the assessment of penalties or other amounts, if any, in excess of the amounts paid. Moody’s had previously accrued its share of the probable liability arising from the utilization of these capital losses and does not anticipate any further income statement charges or cash payments related to IRS assessments for this matter.

Subsequent to making its May 2000 payment to the IRS, IMS Health sought partial reimbursement from NMR under their 1998 distribution agreement (the “IMS/NMR Agreement”). Neither the Company nor Donnelley was a party to the IMS/NMR Agreement. NMR paid IMS Health less than the amount sought by IMS Health under the IMS/NMR Agreement and, in 2001, IMS Health filed an arbitration proceeding against NMR to recover the difference. IMS Health sought to include Donnelley in this arbitration, arguing that if NMR should prevail in its interpretation of the IMS/NMR Agreement, then IMS Health could seek the same interpretation in an alternative claim against Donnelley. During the first quarter of 2002, the arbitration panel ruled that Donnelley properly belonged as a party to the arbitration. If NMR should prevail in the arbitration against IMS Health and, in turn, IMS Health should prevail against Donnelley, then the Company believes that the additional liability to Donnelley would be approximately $15 million, net of tax benefits, and under the terms of the 2000 Distribution Moody’s and New D&B would be responsible for one-half of such amount. The Company believes that the claim asserted against Donnelley by IMS Health is without merit.

Summary of Moody’s Exposure to Three Tax Matters

The Company has considered the range and probability of potential outcomes related to the three tax matters captioned above and believes that it has adequate reserves recorded in its consolidated financial statements for its current exposure in these matters. However, the potential cash outlays resulting from these matters, which we currently estimate could be as much as $134 million, could be material and could increase with time as described above.

7.     COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

Total comprehensive income was as follows:

8.     SEGMENT INFORMATION

The Company reports segment information in accordance with SFAS No. 131, “Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information”. SFAS No. 131 defines operating segments as components of an enterprise for which separate financial information is available that is evaluated regularly by the chief operating decision-maker in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance. The Company has historically operated in one reportable business segment – Ratings, which accounted for approximately 90% of the Company’s total revenue. With the April 2002 acquisition of KMV, Moody’s now operates in two reportable business segments: Ratings and Research and Moody’s KMV. Accordingly, the Company has restated its segment information for corresponding prior periods to conform to the current presentation.

13

Table of Contents

The Ratings and Research segment consists of four rating groups — structured finance, corporate finance, financial institutions and sovereign risk, and public finance — that generate revenue from the assignment of credit ratings to issuers of fixed-income instruments in the debt markets; and research, which primarily generates revenue from the sale of investor-oriented credit research principally produced by the rating groups. Given the dominance of the Ratings and Research segment to Moody’s overall results, the Company does not separately measure or report corporate expenses, nor are they allocated to the Company’s business segments. Accordingly, all corporate expenses are included in operating income of the Ratings and Research segment and none have been allocated to the Moody’s KMV segment.

The Moody’s KMV segment consists of the combined business of KMV and Moody’s Risk Management Services. It is operated as a separate business within Moody’s, and generates revenue from the sale of credit risk management software and related products and services used by banks and other financial institutions in their commercial lending, portfolio management and other activities.

Assets used solely by the Moody’s KMV segment are separately disclosed within that segment. All other Company assets, including corporate assets, are reported as part of the Ratings and Research segment.

International revenue is determined based on the customer’s country of domicile.

There are no intersegment sales and no single customer accounted for 10% or more of total revenue.

Below are financial information by segment, revenue by geographic area, and Ratings and Research revenue by business unit for the three month and six month periods ended June 30, 2002 and 2001.

Financial Information by Segment:

14

Table of Contents