MOODYS CORP /DE/ - Annual Report: 2014 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(MARK ONE)

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

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014

OR

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

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM              TO              .

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 1-14037

MOODY’S CORPORATION

(EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)

7 World Trade Center at 250 Greenwich Street, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007

(ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)

(ZIP CODE)

REGISTRANT’S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE: (212) 553-0300.

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:

NONE

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes þ   No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes ¨  No þ

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes þ   No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes þ   No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer (see definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).

Large Accelerated Filer þ     Accelerated Filer ¨    Non-accelerated Filer ¨    Smaller reporting company ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes ¨   No þ

The aggregate market value of Moody’s Corporation Common Stock held by nonaffiliates* on June 30, 2014 (based upon its closing transaction price on the Composite Tape on such date) was approximately $18.3 billion.

As of January 31, 2015, 202.7 million shares of Common Stock of Moody’s Corporation were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement for use in connection with its annual meeting of stockholders scheduled to be held on April 14, 2015, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

The Index to Exhibits is included as Part IV, Item 15(3) of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

MOODY’S CORPORATION

INDEX TO FORM 10-K

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

The following terms, abbreviations and acronyms are used to identify frequently used terms in this report:

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PART I

BACKGROUND

As used in this report, except where the context indicates otherwise, the terms “Moody’s” or the “Company” refer to Moody’s Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries. The Company’s executive offices are located at 7 World Trade Center at 250 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10007 and its telephone number is (212) 553-0300.

THE COMPANY

Moody’s is a provider of (i) credit ratings, (ii) credit, capital markets and economic related research, data and analytical tools, (iii) software solutions and related risk management services, (iv) quantitative credit risk measures, financial services training and certification services and (v) outsourced research and analytical services to financial institution customers. Moody’s reports in two reportable segments: MIS and MA. Financial information and operating results of these segments, including revenue, expenses and operating income, are included in Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements of this annual report, and are herein incorporated by reference.

MIS publishes credit ratings on a wide range of debt obligations and the entities that issue such obligations in markets worldwide, including various corporate and governmental obligations, structured finance securities and commercial paper programs. Ratings revenue is derived from the originators and issuers of such transactions who use MIS ratings to support the distribution of their debt issues to investors. MIS provides ratings in more than 120 countries. Ratings are disseminated via press releases to the public through a variety of print and electronic media, including the Internet and real-time information systems widely used by securities traders and investors. As of December 31, 2014, MIS had ratings relationships with approximately 11,000 corporate issuers and approximately 21,000 public finance issuers. Additionally, the Company has rated and currently monitors ratings on approximately 72,000 structured finance obligations (representing approximately 12,000 transactions). The aforementioned amounts relating to the number of issuers and transactions represent issuers or transactions that had an active rating at any point during the year ended December 31, 2014. Additionally, MIS earns revenue from certain non-ratings-related operations which consist primarily of the distribution of research and fixed income pricing services in the Asia-Pacific region and from ICRA non-ratings services. The revenue from these operations is included in the MIS Other LOB and is not material to the results of the MIS segment.

The MA segment develops a wide range of products and services that support financial analysis and risk management activities of institutional participants in global financial markets. Within its Research, Data and Analytics business, MA distributes research and data developed by MIS as part of its ratings process, including in-depth research on major debt issuers, industry studies, commentary on topical credit related events and also provides economic research and credit data and analytical tools such as quantitative credit risk scores. Within its Enterprise Risk Solutions business, MA provides software solutions as well as related risk management services. Within its Professional Services business it provides outsourced research and analytical services along with financial training and certification programs. MA customers represent more than 4,700 institutions worldwide operating in approximately 130 countries. During 2014 Moody’s research web site was accessed by over 245,000 individuals including 33,000 client users.

The Company operated as part of “Old D&B” until September 30, 2000, when Old D&B separated into two publicly traded companies – Moody’s Corporation and 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 remaining business of Old D&B consisted solely of the business of providing ratings and related research and credit risk management services and was renamed Moody’s Corporation. For purposes of governing certain ongoing relationships between the Company and New D&B after the 2000 Distribution, the Company and New D&B entered into various agreements including a distribution agreement, tax allocation agreement and employee benefits agreement.

PROSPECTS FOR GROWTH

Over recent decades, global fixed-income markets have grown significantly both in terms of the amount and the types of securities or other obligations outstanding. Beginning in mid-2007, there was a severe market disruption and associated financial crisis both in the

Table of Contents

developed and emerging markets resulting in a global decline in issuance activity for some significant asset classes and weak economic performance in advanced economies. Since this financial crisis, many markets and economies have recovered and Moody’s believes that the overall long-term outlook remains favorable for continued growth of the global fixed-income market and related financial information market, which includes information such as credit opinions, research, data, analytics, risk management tools and related services.

Moody’s growth is influenced by a number of trends that impact financial information markets including:

Moody’s is well positioned to benefit from a continued growth in global fixed-income market activity and a more informed use of credit ratings as well as research and related analytical products in an environment with heightened attention to credit risk analysis and management. Moody’s expects that these developments will support continued long-term demand for high-quality, independent credit opinions, research, data, analytics, risk management tools and related services.

Strong secular trends should continue to provide long-term growth opportunities. Moody’s key growth drivers include debt market issuance driven by global GDP growth, continued disintermediation of fixed-income markets in both developed and emerging economies that drives issuance and demand for new products and services, growth in MA driven by further penetration into MA’s client base and expansion of bank and insurance risk regulatory requirements, pricing opportunities aligned with value and advances in information technology.

Growth in global fixed income markets in a given year is dependent on many macroeconomic and capital market factors including interest rates, business investment spending, corporate refinancing needs, merger and acquisition activity, issuer profits, consumer borrowing levels and securitization activity. Rating fees paid by debt issuers account for most of the revenue of MIS. Therefore, a substantial portion of MIS’s revenue is dependent upon the dollar-equivalent volume and number of ratable debt securities issued in the global capital markets. MIS’s results can be affected by factors such as the performance and prospects for growth of the major world economies, the fiscal and monetary policies pursued by their governments and the decisions of issuers to request MIS ratings to aid investors in their investment decisions. However, annual fee arrangements with frequent debt issuers, annual debt monitoring fees and annual fees from commercial paper and medium-term note programs, bank and insurance company financial strength ratings, mutual fund ratings, and other areas partially mitigate MIS’s dependence on the volume or number of new debt securities issued in the global fixed-income markets. Furthermore, the strong growth seen in the issuance of structured finance securities from the mid-1990’s reversed dramatically in 2008 due to market turmoil, with continued declines seen in 2009 and 2010, before stabilizing in 2011 with Moody’s experiencing revenue growth in this market beginning in 2012. Despite significant declines from peak market issuance levels, Moody’s believes that structured finance securities will continue to play a role in global fixed-income markets and provide opportunities for longer term revenue growth. Moody’s will continue to monitor this market and adapt to meet the changing needs of its participants.

The pace of change in technology and communication over the past two decades makes information about investment alternatives widely available throughout the world and facilitates issuers’ ability to place securities outside their national markets and investors’ capacity to obtain information about securities issued outside their national markets. Technology also allows issuers and investors the ability to more readily obtain information about new financing techniques and new types of securities that they may wish to purchase or sell, which in the absence of the appropriate technology may not be readily or easily obtainable. This availability of information promotes the ongoing integration and expansion of financial markets worldwide giving issuers and investors access to a wider range of established and newer capital markets. As technology provides broader access to worldwide markets, it also results in a greater need for credible, globally comparable opinions about credit risk, data, analytics and related services. Additionally, information technology also provides opportunities to further build a global platform to support Moody’s continued expansion in developing markets.

An ongoing trend in the world’s capital markets is the disintermediation of financial systems. Issuers increasingly raise capital in the global public capital markets, in addition to, or in substitution for, traditional financial intermediaries. Moreover, financial intermediaries have sold assets in the global public capital markets, in addition to, or instead of, retaining those assets. Moody’s believes that debt capital markets offer advantages in capacity and efficiency compared to the traditional banking systems and that the trend of increased disintermediation will continue. Further, disintermediation has continued because of the ongoing low interest rate environment and bank deleveraging, which has encouraged a number of corporations and other entities to seek alternative funding in the bond markets.

Table of Contents

Moody’s also observes disintermediation in key emerging markets where economic growth may outpace internal banking system capacity. Thus, disintermediation is expected to continue over the longer-term, with Moody’s targeting investment and resources to those markets where disintermediation and bond issuance is expected to remain robust.

In response to the credit market disruptions beginning in mid-2007 and, ongoing volatility in the global capital markets, and new regulatory requirements, financial institutions are investing in people, processes and systems to enhance risk management and compliance functions. Regulations such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Basel II, Basel III, Solvency II and others may stimulate demand for MA products. Financial institutions are also investing in advanced qualitative and quantitative tools and services to support their management of complex balance sheets and diverse portfolios as well as operating costs. MA offers a suite of risk management products and services to address these needs, including but not limited to risk management software, economic analysis, training and professional services.

Legislative bodies and regulators in the U.S., Europe and other jurisdictions continue to conduct regulatory reviews of CRAs, which may result in, for example, an increased number of competitors, changes to the business model or restrictions on certain business activities of MIS, removal of references to ratings in certain regulations, or increased costs of doing business for MIS. Therefore, in order to broaden the potential for expansion of non-ratings services, Moody’s reorganized in January 2008 into two distinct businesses: MIS, consisting primarily of the ratings business, and MA, which conducts activities including the sale of credit research produced by MIS and the production and sale of other economic and credit-related products and services. The reorganization broadens the opportunities for expansion by MA into activities that may have otherwise been restricted for MIS, due to the potential for conflicts of interest with the ratings business. At present, Moody’s is unable to assess the nature and effect that any regulatory changes may have on future growth opportunities.

Moody’s operations are subject to various risks, as more fully described in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors,” inherent in conducting business on a global basis. Such risks include currency fluctuations and possible nationalization, expropriation, exchange and price controls, changes in the availability of data from public sector sources, limits on providing information across borders and other restrictive governmental actions.

COMPETITION

MIS competes with other CRAs and with investment banks and brokerage firms that offer credit opinions and research. Many users of MIS’s ratings also have in-house credit research capabilities. MIS’s largest competitor in the global credit rating business is Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (S&P), a division of McGraw Hill Financial. There are some rating markets, based on industry, geography and/or instrument type, in which Moody’s has made investments and obtained market positions superior to S&P, while in other markets, the reverse is true.

In addition to S&P, MIS’s competitors include Fitch Ratings, Dominion Bond Rating Service, A.M. Best Company, Japan Credit Rating Agency Ltd., Kroll Bond Rating Agency Inc., Morningstar Inc. and Egan-Jones Ratings Company. In Europe, examples of competitors include Euler Hermes Rating, Feri EuroRating Services AG, Creditreform Rating AG, ICAP Group and Companhia Portuguesa de Rating. There are additional competitors in other regions and countries, for example, in China, where Moody’s operates through a joint venture. These competitors include China Lianhe Credit Rating Co Ltd., Shanghai Brilliance Credit Rating & Investors Service Co Ltd., Dagong Global Credit Rating Co Ltd. and Pengyuan Credit Rating Co Ltd.

MA competes broadly in the financial information industry against diversified competitors such as Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, S&P Capital IQ, Fitch Solutions, Dun & Bradstreet, IBM, Wolters Kluwer, Sungard, SAS, Fiserv, MSCI and Markit Group among others. MA’s main competitors within RD&A include S&P Capital IQ, CreditSights, Thomson Reuters, Intex, IHS Global Insight, BlackRock Solutions, FactSet and other providers of fixed income analytics, valuations, economic data and research. In ERS, MA faces competition from both large software providers such as IBM Algorithmics, SunGard, SAS, Oracle, Misys, Oliver Wyman, Verisk and various other vendors and in-house solutions. Within Professional Services, MA competes with Omega Performance, DC Gardner, and a host of financial training and education firms, and with Evalueserve, CRISIL Global Research & Analytics, and other providers of outsourced research and professional services, respectively.

MOODY’S STRATEGY

Moody’s corporate strategy is to be the world’s most respected authority serving financial risk-sensitive markets. The key aspects to implement this strategy are to:

Table of Contents

Moody’s will make investments to defend and enhance its core businesses in an attempt to position the Company to fully capture market opportunities resulting from global debt capital market expansion and increased business investment spending. Moody’s will also make strategic investments to achieve scale in attractive financial information markets, move into attractive product and service adjacencies where the Company can leverage its brand, extend its thought leadership and expand its geographic presence in high growth emerging markets.

To broaden the Company’s potential, MA provides a wide range of products and services to enable financial institutions to better manage risk. As such, MA adds to the Company’s value proposition in three ways. First, MA’s subscription businesses provide a significant base of recurring revenue to offset cyclicality in ratings issuance volumes that may result in volatility to MIS’s revenues. Second, MA products and services, such as financial training and professional services on research and risk management best practices, provide opportunities for entry into emerging markets before debt capital markets fully develop and thus present long-term growth opportunities for the ratings business. Finally, MA’s integrated risk management software platform embeds Moody’s solutions deep into the technology infrastructure of banks and insurance companies worldwide.

Moody’s invests in initiatives to implement the Company’s strategy, including internally-led organic development and targeted acquisitions. Example initiatives include:

During 2014, Moody’s completed several strategic transactions in MIS and MA. In June, Moody’s secured majority control of ICRA Ltd., which is a leading provider of credit ratings and research in India, increasing its ownership position from 28.5% to just over 50.0%. In December, Moody’s completed the acquisition of the remaining outstanding interest of Copal Amba (formed through the acquisitions of Copal Partners in 2011 and Amba Investment Services in 2013) and now owns 100% of the company.

Moody’s also made two acquisitions in MA to enhance and expand its product and service offerings to enable financial institutions to better manage risk. In July, Moody’s acquired WebEquity Solutions, LLC, which is a leading provider of cloud-based loan origination solutions for financial institutions. The WebEquity acquisition strengthens MA’s position as a leader in loan origination software and bolsters its suite of award-winning risk management products for banks, insurance companies and corporations. In October, Moody’s acquired Lewtan Technologies, which is a leading provider of analytical tools and data for the global structured finance market. Lewtan provides solutions to issuers, investors, underwriters and others to administer, monitor and value securitized transactions.

REGULATION

MIS and many of the securities that it rates are subject to extensive regulation in both the U.S. and in other countries (including by state and local authorities). Thus, existing and proposed laws and regulations can impact the Company’s operations and the markets for securities that it rates. Additional laws and regulations have been adopted but not yet implemented or have been proposed or are being considered. Each of the existing, adopted, proposed and potential laws and regulations can increase the costs and legal risk associated with the issuance of credit ratings and may negatively impact Moody’s operations or profitability, the Company’s ability to compete, or result in changes in the demand for credit ratings, in the manner in which ratings are utilized and in the manner in which Moody’s operates.

The regulatory landscape has changed rapidly in recent years, and continues to evolve. In the EU, the CRA industry is registered and supervised through a pan-European regulatory framework. The European Securities and Markets Authority has direct supervisory responsibility for the registered CRA industry throughout the EU. MIS is a registered entity and is therefore subject to formal regulation and periodic inspection. Applicable rules include procedural requirements with respect to ratings of sovereign issuers, liability for intentional or grossly negligent failure to abide by applicable regulations, mandatory rotation requirements of CRAs hired by issuers of securities for ratings of resecuritizations, restrictions on CRAs or their shareholders if certain ownership thresholds are crossed, and additional procedural and substantive requirements on the pricing of services.

On January 6, 2015, two additional rules (generally referred to as “Regulatory Technical Standards” or “RTSs”) of direct relevance to the CRA industry were published in the Official Journal of the European Union: (i) CRAs’ reporting requirements to ESMA on their fees; and (ii) the types of information that CRAs are to provide about certain ratings (those that were paid for by issuers) for publication on a central website administered by ESMA (the European Ratings Platform). The RTSs were the final pieces of the rulemaking requirements

Table of Contents

that CRA3 imposed on ESMA and the EU’s legislative tripartite (the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union). Separately, CRA3 also requires that ESMA and / or the European Commission produce several reports on the industry’s structure and the use of ratings. These reports are expected to be published by year end 2015.

In the U.S., CRAs are subject to extensive regulation primarily pursuant to the Reform Act and the Financial Reform Act. The SEC is required by these legislative acts to publish two annual reports to Congress on NRSROs. The Financial Reform Act requires the SEC to examine each NRSRO once a year and issue an annual report summarizing the examination findings, among other requirements. The annual report required by the Reform Act details the SEC’s views on the state of competition, transparency and conflicts of interests among NRSROs, among other requirements.

The SEC voted in August 2014 to adopt its final rules for NRSROs as required by the Financial Reform Act. The final rules differ from earlier proposals by including additional measures regarding: (i) sales and marketing activities; and (ii) the design and enforcement of internal controls for the rating process. The Company has made and continues to make substantial IT and other investments. Consequently, the Company will be in a position to implement the relevant compliance obligations by the set deadlines, generally ranging from 60 days to 9 months following the September 15, 2014 publication of the final rules in the Federal Register.

In light of the regulations that have gone into effect in both the EU and the U.S. (as well as many other countries), from time to time and as a matter of course pursuant to their enabling legislation these regulatory authorities have and will continue to publish reports that describe their oversight activities over the industry. In addition, other legislation and regulation relating to credit rating and research services is being considered by local, national and multinational bodies and this type of activity is likely to continue in the future. Finally, in certain countries, governments may provide financial or other support to locally-based rating agencies. For example, governments may from time to time establish official rating agencies or credit ratings criteria or procedures for evaluating local issuers. If enacted, any such legislation and regulation could change the competitive landscape in which MIS operates. The legal status of rating agencies has been addressed by courts in various decisions and is likely to be considered and addressed in legal proceedings from time to time in the future. Management of the Company cannot predict whether these or any other proposals will be enacted, the outcome of any pending or possible future legal proceedings, or regulatory or legislative actions, or the ultimate impact of any such matters on the competitive position, financial position or results of operations of Moody’s.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Moody’s and its affiliates own and control a variety of intellectual property, including but not limited to proprietary information, trademarks, research, software tools and applications, models and methodologies, databases, domain names, and other proprietary materials that, in the aggregate, are of material importance to Moody’s business. Management of Moody’s believes that each of the trademarks and related corporate names, marks and logos containing the term “Moody’s” are of material importance to the Company.

The Company, primarily through MA, licenses certain of its databases, software applications, credit risk models, training courses in credit risk and capital markets, research and other publications and services that contain Intellectual Property to its customers. These licenses are provided pursuant to standard fee-bearing agreements containing customary restrictions and intellectual property protections.

In addition, Moody’s licenses certain technology and other intellectual property rights owned and controlled by others. Specifically, Moody’s licenses financial information (such as market and index data, financial statement data, third party research, default data, and security identifiers) as well as software development tools and libraries. The Company obtains such technology and intellectual property rights from generally available commercial sources. Most of such technology and intellectual property is available from a variety of sources. Although certain financial information (particularly security identifiers and certain pricing or index data) is available only from a limited number of sources, Moody’s does not believe it is dependent on any one data source for a material aspect of its business.

The Company considers its Intellectual Property to be proprietary, and Moody’s relies on a combination of copyright, trademark, trade secret, patent, non-disclosure and other contractual safeguards for protection. Moody’s also pursues instances of third-party infringement of its Intellectual Property in order to protect the Company’s rights. The Company owns two patents. None of the Intellectual Property is subject to a specific expiration date, except to the extent that the patents and the copyright in items that the Company authors (such as credit reports, research, software, and other written opinions) expire pursuant to relevant law.

The names of Moody’s products and services referred to herein are trademarks, service marks or registered trademarks or service marks owned by or licensed to Moody’s or one or more of its subsidiaries.

EMPLOYEES

As of December 31, 2014 the number of full-time equivalent employees of Moody’s was approximately 9,900.

Table of Contents

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Moody’s investor relations Internet website is http://ir.moodys.com/. Under the “SEC Filings” tab at this website, the Company makes available free of charge its annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.

The SEC maintains an internet site that contains annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy and other information statements that the Company files electronically with the SEC. The SEC’s internet site is http://www.sec.gov/.

Executive Officers of the Registrant

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

The following risk factors and other information included in this annual report on Form 10-K should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones the Company faces. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to the Company or that the Company’s management currently deems minor or insignificant also may impair its business operations. If any of the following risks occur, Moody’s business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. These risk factors should be read in conjunction with the other information in this annual report on Form 10-K.

U.S. Laws and Regulations Affecting the Credit Rating Industry are Rapidly Evolving and May Negatively Impact the Nature and Economics of the Company’s Business

Moody’s operates in a highly regulated industry and is subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local authorities in the U.S., including the Reform Act and the Financial Reform Act. These regulations are complex, continually evolving and have tended to become more stringent over time. See “Regulation” in Part 1, Item 1 of this annual report on Form 10-K for more information. These laws and regulations:

These laws and regulations, and any future rulemaking or court rulings, could result in reduced demand for credit ratings and increased costs, which Moody’s may be unable to pass through to customers. In addition, there may be uncertainty over the scope, interpretation and administration of such laws and regulations. The Company may be required to incur significant expenses in order to ensure compliance and mitigate the risk of fines, penalties or other sanctions. Legal proceedings could become increasingly lengthy and there may be uncertainty over and exposure to liability. It is difficult to accurately assess the future impact of legislative and regulatory requirements on Moody’s business and its customers’ businesses, and they may affect MIS’s communications with issuers as part of the rating assignment process, alter the manner in which MIS’s ratings are developed, assigned and communicated, affect the manner in which MIS or its customers or users of credit ratings operate, impact the demand for MIS’s ratings and alter the economics of the credit ratings business, including by restricting or mandating business models for rating agencies. Further, speculation concerning the impact of legislative and regulatory initiatives and the increased uncertainty over potential liability and adverse legal or judicial determinations may affect Moody’s stock price. Although these recent and pending legislative and regulatory initiatives apply to rating agencies and credit markets generally, they may affect Moody’s in a disproportionate manner. Each of these developments increase the costs and legal risk associated with the issuance of credit ratings and may have a material adverse effect on Moody’s operations, profitability and competitiveness, the demand for credit ratings and the manner in which such ratings are utilized.

Financial Reforms Outside the U.S. Affecting the Credit Rating Industry May Negatively Impact the Nature and Economics of the Company’s Business

In addition to the extensive and evolving U.S. laws and regulations governing the industry, foreign jurisdictions have taken measures to increase regulation of rating agencies and the markets for ratings. In particular, the EU has adopted a new regulatory framework for rating agencies operating in the EU, and introduced a common EU regulatory approach to oversight of CRAs. The EU has established conditions for the issuance of credit ratings, rules on the organization and conduct of CRAs—including restrictions on certain activities deemed to create a conflict of interest—and special requirements for the rating of structured finance instruments. ESMA has direct supervisory authority for CRAs in the EU.

MIS is a registered entity and is therefore subject to formal regulation and periodic inspection. Applicable rules include procedural requirements with respect to ratings of sovereign issuers, liability for intentional or grossly negligent failure to abide by applicable regulations, mandatory rotation requirements of CRAs hired by issuers of securities for ratings of resecuritizations, restrictions on CRAs or their shareholders if certain ownership thresholds are crossed, and additional procedural and substantive requirements on the pricing of services.

On January 6, 2015, two additional rules (generally referred to as “Regulatory Technical Standards” or “RTSs”) of direct relevance to the CRA industry were published in the Official Journal of the European Union: (i) CRAs’ reporting requirements to ESMA on their fees; and

Table of Contents

(ii) the types of information that CRAs are to provide about certain ratings (those that were paid for by issuers) for publication on a central website administered by ESMA (the European Ratings Platform). Separately, CRA3 also requires that ESMA and / or the European Commission produce several reports on the industry’s structure and the use of ratings. These reports are expected to be published by year end 2015.

EU financial reforms could have a significant negative effect on Moody’s operations, profitability or ability to compete, or the markets for its products and services, including in ways that Moody’s presently is unable to predict. In particular, exposure to increased liability under the EU regulations may further increase costs and legal risks associated with the issuance of credit ratings and materially and adversely impact Moody’s results of operations. In addition, compliance with the amended EU regulations may increase costs of operations.

Further, Moody’s believes there is still potential for additional rulemaking by the EU and other jurisdictions that can significantly impact operations or the markets for Moody’s products and services, such as regulations affecting the need for debt securities to be rated, establishing criteria for credit ratings or limiting the entities authorized to provide credit ratings. Moody’s cannot predict the extent of such future laws and regulations, and the effect that they will have on Moody’s business or the potential for increased exposure to liability could be significant. Financial reforms in the EU and other foreign jurisdictions may have a material adverse effect on Moody’s business, operating results and financial condition.

The Company Faces Exposure to Litigation Related to Rating Opinions and Other Business Practices

Moody’s faces exposure to litigation related to MIS’s ratings actions, as well as other business practices. As a result of difficult economic times and turbulent markets in recent years, the market value of credit-dependent instruments has declined and defaults have increased. This development has led to a significant increase in the number of legal proceedings that Moody’s is facing, including class actions and other litigation, government investigations and inquiries concerning events in the U.S. subprime residential mortgage sector and the credit markets more broadly. Legal proceedings impose additional expenses on the Company and require the attention of senior management to an extent that may significantly reduce their ability to devote time addressing other business issues. Risks relating to legal proceedings may be heightened in foreign jurisdictions that lack the legal protections or liability standards comparable to those that exist in the U.S. In addition, new laws and regulations have been and may continue to be enacted that establish lower liability standards, shift the burden of proof or relax pleading requirements, thereby increasing the risk of successful litigations in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions. These litigation risks are often difficult to assess or quantify. Moody’s may not have adequate insurance or reserves to cover these risks, and the existence and magnitude of these risks often remains unknown for substantial periods of time. Furthermore, to the extent that Moody’s is unable to achieve dismissals at an early stage and litigation matters proceed to trial, the aggregate legal defense costs incurred by Moody’s increase substantially, as does the risk of an adverse outcome. See Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements for more information regarding ongoing investigations and civil litigation that the Company currently faces. Due to the number of these proceedings and the significant amount of damages sought, there is a risk that Moody’s will be subject to judgments, settlements, fines, penalties or other adverse results that could have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results and financial condition.

The Company is Exposed to Legal, Economic and Regulatory Risks of Operating in Multiple Jurisdictions

Moody’s conducts operations in various countries outside the U.S. and derives a significant portion of its revenue from foreign sources. Changes in the economic condition of the various foreign economies in which the Company operates may have an impact on the Company’s business. For example, economic uncertainty in the Eurozone or elsewhere could affect the number of securities offerings undertaken within those particular areas. In addition, operations abroad expose Moody’s to a number of legal, economic and regulatory risks such as:

Table of Contents

Additionally, Moody’s is subject to complex U.S. and foreign laws and regulations, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act and other anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws. Although the Company has implemented internal controls, policies and procedures and employee training and compliance programs to deter prohibited practices, such measures may not be effective in preventing employees, contractors or agents from violating or circumventing such internal policies and violating applicable laws and regulations. Any determination that the Company has violated anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws could have a material adverse effect on Moody’s financial condition. Compliance with international and U.S. laws and regulations that apply to the Company’s international operations increases the cost of doing business in foreign jurisdictions. Violations of such laws and regulations may result in fines and penalties, criminal sanctions, administrative remedies, restrictions on business conduct and could have a material adverse effect on Moody’s reputation, its ability to attract and retain employees, its business, operating results and financial condition.

Moody’s Operations and Infrastructure May Malfunction or Fail

Moody’s ability to conduct business may be materially and adversely impacted by a disruption in the infrastructure that supports its businesses and the communities in which Moody’s is located, including New York City, the location of Moody’s headquarters, major cities worldwide in which Moody’s has offices, and locations in China used for data and development work. This may include a disruption involving physical or technological infrastructure, including the Company’s electronic delivery systems, data center facilities and the Internet, used by the Company or third parties with or through whom Moody’s conducts business, whether due to human error, natural disasters, power loss, telecommunication failures, break-ins, sabotage, intentional acts of vandalism, acts of terrorism, political unrest, war or otherwise. Moody’s efforts to secure and plan for potential disruptions of its major operating systems may not be successful. The Company relies on third-party providers to provide certain essential services. While the Company believes that such providers are reliable, the Company has limited control over the performance of such providers. To the extent any of the Company’s third-party providers ceases to provide these services in an efficient, cost-effective manner or fail to adequately expand its services to meet the Company’s needs and the needs of the Company’s customers, the Company could experience lower revenues and higher costs. The Company also does not have fully redundant systems for most of its smaller office locations and low-risk systems, and its disaster recovery plan does not include restoration of non-essential services. If a disruption occurs in one of Moody’s locations or systems and its personnel in those locations or those who rely on such systems are unable to utilize other systems or communicate with or travel to other locations, such persons’ ability to service and interact with Moody’s clients and customers may suffer. The Company cannot predict with certainty all of the adverse effects that could result from the Company’s failure, or the failure of a third party, to efficiently address and resolve these delays and interruptions. A disruption to Moody’s operations or infrastructure may have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results and financial condition.

The Company is Exposed to Risks Related to Cybersecurity and Protection of Confidential Information

The Company’s operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential, sensitive, proprietary and other types of information relating to its business operations and confidential and sensitive information about its clients in the Company’s computer systems and networks and those of its third party vendors. The cyber risks the Company’s faces range from cyber-attacks common to most industries, to more advanced threats that target the Company because of its prominence in the global marketplace, or due to its ratings of sovereign debt. Breaches of Moody’s or Moody’s vendors’ technology and systems, whether from circumvention of security systems, denial-of-service attacks or other cyber-attacks, hacking, computer viruses or malware, employee error, malfeasance, social engineering, physical breaches or other actions, may result in manipulation or corruption of sensitive data, material interruptions or malfunctions in the Company’s or such vendors’ web sites, applications, data processing, or disruption of other business operations, or may compromise the confidentiality and integrity of material information held by the Company (including information about Moody’s business or customers), as well as sensitive personally identifiable information (“PII”), the disclosure of which could lead to identity theft. Measures that Moody’s takes to avoid or mitigate material incidents can be expensive, and may be insufficient, circumvented, or may become obsolete. Any material breaches of cybersecurity could cause the Company to experience reputational harm, loss of customers, regulatory actions, sanctions or other statutory penalties, litigation, liability for failure to safeguard the Company’s clients’ information or financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered through any insurance maintained by the Company. Any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect on Moody’s business, operating results or financial condition.

Changes in the Volume of Debt Securities Issued in Domestic and/or Global Capital Markets and Changes in Interest Rates and Other Volatility in the Financial Markets May Negatively Impact the Nature and Economics of the Company’s Business

Moody’s business is impacted by general economic conditions and volatility in the U.S. and world financial markets. Furthermore, issuers of debt securities may elect to issue securities without ratings or securities which are rated or evaluated by non-traditional

Table of Contents

parties such as financial advisors, rather than traditional CRAs, such as MIS. A majority of Moody’s credit-rating-based revenue is transaction-based, and therefore it is especially dependent on the number and dollar volume of debt securities issued in the capital markets. Accordingly, any market volatility or conditions that either reduce investor demand for debt securities or issuers’ willingness or ability to issue such securities could reduce the number and dollar-equivalent volume of debt issuances for which Moody’s provides ratings services and thereby have an adverse effect on the fees derived from the issuance of ratings. Therefore, no assurance can be given as to the amount of revenues that may be derived from Moody’s ratings services.

Credit market disruptions and economic slowdown and uncertainty have in the past negatively impacted the volume of debt securities issued in global capital markets and the demand for credit ratings. Economic and government factors such as a long-term continuation of difficult economic conditions and a worsening of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe may have an adverse impact on the Company’s business. Future debt issuances could be negatively affected by a sharp increase in long-term interest rates or factors which cause instability or volatility in the global capital markets, such as significant regulatory, political or economic events, the use of alternative sources of credit, including financial institutions and government sources, and defaults of significant issuers and other market and economic factors. Changes in the markets for such securities and in the role and regulation of rating agencies may materially and adversely affect the Company.

Moody’s initiatives to reduce costs to counteract a decline in its business may not be sufficient and cost reductions may be difficult or impossible to obtain in the short term, due in part to rent, technology, compliance and other fixed costs associated with some of the Company’s operations as well as the need to monitor outstanding ratings. Further, cost-reduction initiatives, including those undertaken to date, could make it difficult for the Company to rapidly expand operations in order to accommodate any unexpected increase in the demand for ratings. Volatility in the financial markets, including changes in the volumes of debt securities and changes in interest rates, may have a material adverse effect on the business, operating results and financial condition.

The Company Faces Increased Pricing Pressure from Competitors and/or Customers

There is price competition in the credit rating, research, credit risk management markets, outsourced research and analytical services and financial training and certification services. Competition for customers and market share has spurred more aggressive tactics by some competitors in areas such as pricing and services, as well as increased competition from non-NRSROs that evaluate debt risk for issuers or investors. At the same time, the current challenging business environment and the consolidation of customers, particularly those involved in structured finance products, and other factors affecting demand may enhance the market power of competitors and result in reductions in the size of the Company’s customer base. Tepid economic growth is also intensifying the competitive pressures as to pricing. While Moody’s seeks to compete primarily on the basis of the quality of its products and services, it may lose market share if its pricing is not sufficiently competitive with its current and future competitors. In addition, the Reform Act was designed to encourage competition among rating agencies. The formation of additional NRSROs may increase pricing and competitive pressures. Any inability of Moody’s to compete successfully with respect to the pricing of its products and services could have a material adverse impact on its business, operating results and financial condition.

The Company is Exposed to Reputation and Credibility Concerns

Moody’s reputation and the strength of its brand are key competitive strengths. To the extent that the rating agency business as a whole or Moody’s, relative to its competitors, suffers a loss in credibility, Moody’s business could be significantly impacted. Factors that may have already affected credibility and could potentially continue to have an impact in this regard include the appearance of a conflict of interest, the performance of securities relative to the rating assigned to such securities, the timing and nature of changes in ratings, a major compliance failure, negative perceptions or publicity and increased criticism by users of ratings, regulators and legislative bodies, including as to the ratings process and its implementation with respect to one or more securities. Operational errors, whether by Moody’s or a Moody’s competitor, could also harm the reputation of the Company or the credit rating industry. Damage to reputation and credibility could have a material adverse impact on Moody’s business, operating results and financial condition.

The Introduction of Competing Products or Technologies by Other Companies May Negatively Impact the Nature and Economics of the Company’s Business

The markets for credit ratings, research, credit risk management services, outsourced research and analytical services and financial training and certification services are highly competitive and characterized by rapid technological change, changes in client demands and evolving industry standards. The ability to develop and successfully launch and maintain innovative products and technologies that anticipate customers’ changing requirements and utilize emerging technological trends is a key factor in maintaining market share. Moody’s competitors include both established companies with significant financial resources, brand recognition, market experience and technological expertise, and smaller companies which may be better poised to quickly adopt new or emerging technologies or respond to customer requirements. Competitors may develop quantitative methodologies or related services for assessing credit risk that customers and market participants may deem preferable, more cost-effective or more valuable than the credit risk assessment methods currently employed by Moody’s, or may position, price or market their products in manners that differ from those utilized by Moody’s. Moody’s also competes indirectly against consulting firms and other information providers; these indirect competitors could choose to

Table of Contents

compete directly with us in the future. In addition, customers or others may develop alternative, proprietary systems for assessing credit risk. Such developments could affect demand for Moody’s products and services and its growth prospects. Further, the increased availability in recent years of free or relatively inexpensive Internet information may reduce the demand for Moody’s products and services. Moody’s growth prospects also could be adversely affected by Moody’s failure to make necessary or optimal capital infrastructure expenditures and improvements and the inability of its information technologies to provide adequate capacity and capabilities to meet increased demands of producing quality ratings and research products at levels achieved by competitors. Any inability of Moody to compete successfully may have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results and financial condition.

The Company Has a Significant Amount of Intangible Assets

At December 31, 2014, Moody’s had $1,021.1 million of goodwill and $345.5 million of intangible assets on its balance sheet. Approximately 71% of these intangibles reside in the MA business and are allocated to the four reporting units within MA: RD&A; ERS; Financial Services Training and Certifications; and Copal Amba. The remaining 29% of these intangibles reside in MIS and primarily relate to ICRA. Failure to achieve business objectives and financial projections in any of these reporting units could result in an asset impairment charge, which would result in a non-cash charge to operating expenses. Goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives are tested for impairment on an annual basis and also when events or changes in circumstances indicate that impairment may have occurred. Determining whether an impairment of goodwill exists can be difficult as a result of increased uncertainty and current market dynamics, and requires significant management estimates and judgment. In addition, the potential for goodwill impairment is increased during periods of economic uncertainty. An asset impairment charge could have a material adverse effect on Moody’s business, operating results and financial condition.

Possible Loss of Key Employees and Related Compensation Cost Pressures May Negatively Impact the Company

Moody’s success depends upon its ability to recruit, retain and motivate highly skilled, experienced financial analysts and other professionals. Competition for skilled individuals in the financial services industry is intense, and Moody’s ability to attract high quality employees could be impaired if it is unable to offer competitive compensation and other incentives or if the regulatory environment mandates restrictions on or disclosures about individual employees that would not be necessary in competing analytical industries. As greater focus has been placed on executive compensation at public companies, in the future, Moody’s may be required to alter its compensation practices in ways that could adversely affect its ability to attract and retain talented employees. Investment banks, investors and competitors may seek to attract analyst talent by providing more favorable working conditions or offering significantly more attractive compensation packages than Moody’s. Moody’s also may not be able to identify and hire the appropriate qualified employees in some markets outside the U.S. with the required experience or skills to perform sophisticated credit analysis. There is a risk that even if the Company invests significant resources in attempting to attract, train and retain qualified personnel, it will not succeed in its efforts, and its business could be harmed.

Moody’s is highly dependent on the continued services of Raymond W. McDaniel, Jr., the President and Chief Executive Officer, and other senior officers and key employees. The loss of the services of skilled personnel for any reason and Moody’s inability to replace them with suitable candidates quickly or at all, as well as any negative market perception resulting from such loss, could have a material adverse effect on Moody’s business, operating results and financial condition.

Moody’s Acquisitions and Other Strategic Transactions May Not Produce Anticipated Results

Moody’s has made and expects to continue to make acquisitions or enter into other strategic transactions to strengthen its business and grow the Company. Such transactions present significant challenges and risks. The market for acquisition targets and other strategic transactions is highly competitive, especially in light of industry consolidation, which may affect Moody’s ability to complete such transactions. If Moody’s is unsuccessful in completing such transactions or if such opportunities for expansion do not arise, its business, operating results and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

If such transactions are completed, the anticipated growth, synergies and other strategic objectives of such transactions may not be fully realized, and a variety of factors may adversely affect any anticipated benefits from such transactions. Any strategic transaction can involve a number of risks, including unanticipated challenges regarding integration of operations, technologies and new employees; the existence of liabilities or contingencies not disclosed to or otherwise known by the Company prior to closing a transaction; unexpected regulatory and operating difficulties and expenditures; failure to retain key personnel of the acquired business; diverting management’s focus from other business operations; and failing to implement or remediate controls, procedures and policies appropriate for a larger public company at acquired companies that prior to the acquisition lacked such controls, procedures and policies. The anticipated benefits from an acquisition or other strategic transaction may not be realized fully, or may take longer to realize than expected. As a result, the failure of acquisitions and other strategic transactions to perform as expected may have a material adverse effect on Moody’s business, operating results and financial condition.

The Trading Price of Moody’s Stock Could be Affected by Third Party Actions

Ownership of Moody’s stock is highly concentrated with a significant portion of shares held by a few institutional stockholders. Due to this concentrated stockholder base, the trading price of Moody’s stock could be affected considerably by actions of significant

Table of Contents

stockholders to increase or decrease their positions in Moody’s stock. As a result, the actions of these institutional stockholders could create high stock volatility.

The Company’s Compliance and Risk Management Programs Might Not be Effective and May Result in Outcomes That Could Adversely Affect the Company’s Reputation, Financial Condition and Operating Results.

Moody’s operates in a number of countries, and as a result the Company is required to comply with numerous international and U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations. The Company’s ability to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including anti-corruption laws, is largely dependent on its establishment and maintenance of compliance, review and reporting systems. Moody’s policies and procedures to identify, evaluate and manage the Company’s risks may not be fully effective, and Moody’s employees [or agents] may engage in misconduct, fraud or other errors. It is not always possible to deter such errors, and the precautions the Company takes to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. If Moody’s employees violate its policies or if the Company’s risk management methods are not effective, the Company could be subject to regulatory sanctions and suffer harm to the Company’s reputation, financial condition and operating results.

Legal Protections for the Company’s Intellectual Property Rights may not be Sufficient or Available to Protect the Company’s Competitive Advantages.

Moody’s considers many aspects of its products and services to be proprietary. Failure to protect the Company’s intellectual property adequately could harm its reputation and affect the Company’s ability to compete effectively. In addition, the Company’s operating results may be adversely affected by inadequate or changing legal and technological protections for intellectual property and proprietary rights in some jurisdictions and markets. On January 6, 2015, a rule with direct relevance to the CRA industry was published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the types of information that CRAs are to provide about certain ratings (those that were paid for by issuers) for publication on a central website administered by ESMA (the European Ratings Platform). This rule directly relates to the Company’s intellectual property as it would require that the Company provide proprietary information at no cost that the Company currently sells, which could result in lost revenue.

Additionally, despite the Company’s efforts to protect its intellectual property rights, unauthorized third parties may try to obtain and use technology or other information that the Company regards as proprietary. Even if Moody’s attempts to protect its intellectual property rights through litigation, it may require considerable cost, time and resources to do so, and there is no guarantee that the Company will be successful.

The Company is Dependent on the Use of Third-Party Software, Data, Hosted Solutions, Data Centers, and Network Infrastructure (Together, “Third Party Technology”), and Any Reduction in Third-Party Product Quality or Service Offerings, Could Have a Material Adverse Effect on the Company’s Business, Financial Condition or Results of Operations.

Moody’s relies on Third Party Technology in connection with its product development and offerings. The Company depends on the ability of Third Party Technology providers to deliver and support reliable products, enhance their current products, develop new products on a timely and cost-effective basis, and respond to emerging industry standards and other technological changes. The Third Party Technology Moody’s uses may become obsolete, incompatible with future versions of the Company’s products, unavailable or fail to operate effectively, and Moody’s business could be adversely affected if the Company is unable to timely or effectively replace such Third Party Technology. The Company also monitors its use of Third Party Technology to comply with applicable license and other contractual requirements. Despite the Company’s efforts, the Company cannot assure that such third parties will permit Moody’s use in the future, resulting in increased Third Party Technology acquisition costs and loss of rights. In addition, the Company’s operating costs could increase if license or other usage fees for Third Party Technology increase or the efforts to incorporate enhancements to Third Party Technology are substantial. Some of these third-party suppliers are also Moody’s competitors, increasing the risks noted above. If any of these risks materialize, they could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

None.

Moody’s corporate headquarters is located at 7 World Trade Center at 250 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10007, with approximately 797,537 square feet of leased space. As of December 31, 2014, Moody’s operations were conducted from 21 U.S. offices and 76 non-U.S. office locations, all of which are leased. These properties are geographically distributed to meet operating and sales requirements worldwide. These properties are generally considered to be both suitable and adequate to meet current operating requirements.

Table of Contents

For information regarding legal proceedings, see Part II, Item 8 – “Financial Statements”, Note 18 “Contingencies” in this Form 10-K.

Not applicable.

Table of Contents

PART II

Information in response to this Item is set forth under the captions below.

MOODY’S PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

For the three months ended December 31, 2014

During the fourth quarter of 2014, Moody’s issued 0.3 million shares under employee stock-based compensation plans.

Table of Contents

COMMON STOCK INFORMATION AND DIVIDENDS

The Company’s common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “MCO”. The table below indicates the high and low sales price of the Company’s common stock and the dividends declared and paid for the periods shown. The number of registered shareholders of record at January 31, 2015 was 2,394. A substantially greater number of the Company’s common stock is held by beneficial holders whose shares are held of record by banks, brokers and other financial institutions.

On December 16, 2014, the Board of the Company approved the declaration of a quarterly dividend of $0.34 per share of Moody’s common stock, payable on March 10, 2015 to shareholders of record at the close of business on February 20, 2015. The continued payment of dividends at the rate noted above, or at all, is subject to the discretion of the Board.

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

The table below sets forth, as of December 31, 2014, certain information regarding the Company’s equity compensation plans.

Table of Contents

PERFORMANCE GRAPH

The following graph compares the total cumulative shareholder return of the Company to the performance of Standard & Poor’s Stock 500 Composite Index and the Russell 3000 Financial Services Index. Both of the aforementioned indexes are easily accessible to the Company’s shareholders in newspapers, the internet and other readily available sources for purposes of the following graph.

The comparison assumes that $100.00 was invested in the Company’s common stock and in each of the foregoing indices on December 31, 2009. The comparison also assumes the reinvestment of dividends, if any. The total return for the common stock was 286% during the performance period as compared with a total return during the same period of 93% for the Russell 3000 Financial Services Index and 105% for the S&P 500 Composite Index.

Comparison of Cumulative Total Return

Moody’s Corporation, Russell 3000 Financial Services Index and S&P 500 Composite Index

COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN

Among Moody’s, the S&P 500 Index

and the Russell 3000 Financial Services Index

The comparisons in the graph above are provided in response to disclosure requirements of the SEC and are not intended to forecast or be indicative of future performance of the Company’s common stock.

Table of Contents

The Company’s selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with Item 7. “MD&A” and the Moody’s Corporation consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

Table of Contents

This discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the Moody’s Corporation consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K.

This MD&A contains Forward-Looking Statements. See “Forward-Looking Statements” commencing on page 54 and Item 1A. “Risk Factors” commencing on page 17 for a discussion of uncertainties, risks and other factors associated with these statements.

THE COMPANY

Moody’s is a provider of (i) credit ratings, (ii) credit and economic related research, data and analytical tools, (iii) software solutions and related risk management services, (iv) quantitative credit risk measures, financial services training and certification services and (v) outsourced research and analytical services to institutional customers. Moody’s has two reportable segments: MIS and MA.

MIS, the credit rating agency, publishes credit ratings on a wide range of debt obligations and the entities that issue such obligations in markets worldwide. Revenue is primarily derived from the originators and issuers of such transactions who use MIS ratings in the distribution of their debt issues to investors. Additionally, MIS earns revenue from certain non-ratings-related operations which consist primarily of the distribution of research and fixed income pricing services in the Asia-Pacific region and from ICRA non-ratings services. The revenue from these operations is included in the MIS Other LOB and is not material to the results of the MIS segment.

The MA segment develops a wide range of products and services that primarily support financial analysis and risk management activities of institutional participants in global financial markets. Within its RD&A business, MA distributes research and data developed by MIS as part of its ratings process, including in-depth research on major debt issuers, industry studies and commentary on topical credit-related events. The RD&A business also produces economic research as well as data and analytical tools such as quantitative credit risk scores. Within its ERS business, MA provides software solutions as well as related risk management services. The PS business provides outsourced research and analytical services and financial training and certification programs.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

Moody’s discussion and analysis of its financial condition and results of operations are based on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires Moody’s to make estimates and judgments that affect reported amounts of assets and liabilities and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. These estimates are based on historical experience and on other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. On an ongoing basis, Moody’s evaluates its estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, accounts receivable allowances, contingencies, goodwill and intangible assets, pension and other retirement benefits, UTPs and stock-based compensation. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. The following accounting estimates are considered critical because they are particularly dependent on management’s judgment about matters that are uncertain at the time the accounting estimates are made and changes to those estimates could have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

Revenue Recognition

Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or the services have been provided and accepted by the customer when applicable, fees are determinable and the collection of resulting receivables is considered probable.

Pursuant to the guidance of ASC Topic 605, when a sales arrangement contains multiple deliverables, the Company allocates revenue to each deliverable based on its relative selling price which is determined based on its vendor specific objective evidence if available, third party evidence if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor TPE is available.

The Company’s products and services will generally qualify as separate units of accounting under ASC Topic 605. The Company evaluates each deliverable in an arrangement to determine whether it represents a separate unit of accounting. A deliverable constitutes a separate unit of accounting when it has stand-alone value to the customers and if the arrangement includes a customer refund or return right relative to the delivered item, the delivery and performance of the undelivered item is considered probable and substantially in the Company’s control. In instances where the aforementioned criteria are not met, the delivered item is combined with the undelivered items and revenue recognition is determined as one single unit.

The Company determines whether its selling price in a multi-element transaction meets the VSOE criteria by using the price charged for a deliverable when sold separately. In instances where the Company is not able to establish VSOE for all deliverables in a multiple

Table of Contents

element arrangement, which may be due to the Company infrequently selling each element separately, not selling products within a reasonably narrow price range, or only having a limited sales history, the Company attempts to establish TPE for deliverables. The Company determines whether TPE exists by evaluating largely similar and interchangeable competitor products or services in standalone sales to similarly situated customers. However, due to the difficulty in obtaining third party pricing, possible differences in the Company’s market strategy from that of its peers and the potential that products and services offered by the Company may contain a significant level of differentiation and/or customization such that the comparable pricing of products with similar functionality cannot be obtained, the Company generally is unable to reliably determine TPE. Based on the selling price hierarchy established by ASU 2009-13, when the Company is unable to establish selling price using VSOE or TPE, the Company will establish an ESP. ESP is the price at which the Company would transact a sale if the product or service were sold on a stand-alone basis. The Company establishes its best estimate of ESP considering internal factors relevant to its pricing practices such as costs and margin objectives, standalone sales prices of similar products, percentage of the fee charged for a primary product or service relative to a related product or service, and customer segment and geography. Additional consideration is also given to market conditions such as competitor pricing strategies and market trend. The Company reviews its determination of VSOE, TPE and ESP on an annual basis or more frequently as needed.

In the MIS segment, revenue attributed to initial ratings of issued securities is recognized when the rating is issued. Revenue attributed to monitoring of issuers or issued securities is recognized ratably over the period in which the monitoring is performed, generally one year. In the case of commercial mortgage-backed securities, structured credit, international residential mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities, issuers can elect to pay the monitoring fees upfront. These fees are deferred and recognized over the future monitoring periods based on the expected lives of the rated securities, which was approximately 28 years on a weighted average basis at December 31, 2014. At December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, deferred revenue related to these securities was approximately $107 million, $97 million and $82 million, respectively.

Multiple element revenue arrangements in the MIS segment are generally comprised of an initial rating and the related monitoring service. In instances where monitoring fees are not charged for the first year monitoring effort, fees are allocated to the initial rating and monitoring services based on the relative selling price of each service to the total arrangement fees. The Company generally uses ESP in determining the selling price for its initial ratings as the Company rarely sells initial ratings separately without providing related monitoring services and thus is unable to establish VSOE or TPE for initial ratings.

MIS estimates revenue for ratings of commercial paper for which, in addition to a fixed annual monitoring fee, issuers are billed quarterly based on amounts outstanding. Revenue is accrued each quarter based on estimated amounts outstanding and is billed when actual data is available. The estimate is determined based on the issuers’ most recent reported quarterly data. At December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, accounts receivable included approximately $22 million, $21 million and $22 million, respectively, related to accrued commercial paper revenue. Historically, MIS has not had material differences between the estimated revenue and the actual billings. Furthermore, for certain annual monitoring services, fees are not invoiced until the end of the monitoring period, however, revenue is recognized ratably over the monitoring period.

In the MA segment, products and services offered by the Company include software licenses and related maintenance, subscriptions, and professional services. Revenue from subscription based products, such as research and data subscriptions and certain software-based credit risk management subscription products, is recognized ratably over the related subscription period, which is principally one year. Revenue from sale of perpetual licenses of credit processing software is generally recognized at the time the product master or first copy is delivered or transferred to and accepted by the customer. Software maintenance revenue is recognized ratably over the annual maintenance period. Revenue from professional services rendered is generally recognized as the services are performed. If uncertainty exists regarding customer acceptance of the product or service, revenue is not recognized until acceptance occurs. A large portion of annual research and data subscriptions as well as annual software maintenance is invoiced in November, December and January of each year.

Products and services offered within the MA segment are sold either stand-alone or together in various combinations. In instances where a multiple element arrangement includes software and non-software deliverables, revenue is allocated to the non-software deliverables and to the software deliverables, as a group, using the relative selling prices of each of the deliverables in the arrangement based on the aforementioned selling price hierarchy. Revenue is recognized for each element based upon the conditions for revenue recognition previously described.

If the arrangement contains more than one software deliverable, the arrangement consideration allocated to the software deliverables as a group is allocated to each software deliverable using VSOE. In the instances where the Company is not able to determine VSOE for all of the deliverables of an arrangement, the Company allocates the revenue to the undelivered elements equal to its VSOE and the residual revenue to the delivered elements. If the Company is unable to determine VSOE for an undelivered element, the Company defers all revenue allocated to the software deliverables until the Company has delivered all of the elements or when VSOE has been determined for the undelivered elements. In cases where software implementation services are considered essential and VSOE of fair value exists for post-contract customer support (“PCS”), once the delivery criteria have been met on the standard software, license and

Table of Contents

service revenue is recognized on a percentage-of-completion basis as implementation services are performed, while PCS is recognized over the coverage period. If VSOE of fair value does not exist for PCS, once the delivery criteria have been met on the standard software, service revenue is recognized on a zero profit margin basis until essential services are complete, at which point total remaining arrangement revenue is then spread ratably over the remaining PCS coverage period.

Accounts Receivable Allowance

Moody’s records an allowance for estimated future adjustments to customer billings as a reduction of revenue, based on historical experience and current conditions. Such amounts are reflected as additions to the accounts receivable allowance. Additionally, estimates of uncollectible accounts are recorded as bad debt expense and are reflected as additions to the accounts receivable allowance. Actual billing adjustments and uncollectible account write-offs are charged against the allowance. Moody’s evaluates its accounts receivable allowance by reviewing and assessing historical collection and adjustment experience and the current aging status of customer accounts. Moody’s also considers the economic environment of the customers, both from an industry and geographic perspective, in evaluating the need for allowances. Based on its analysis, Moody’s adjusts its allowance as considered appropriate in the circumstances. This process involves a high degree of judgment and estimation and could involve significant dollar amounts. Accordingly, Moody’s results of operations can be affected by adjustments to the allowance. Management believes that the allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable is adequate to cover anticipated adjustments and write-offs under current conditions. However, significant changes in any of the above factors, or actual write-offs or adjustments that differ from the estimated amounts could impact the Company’s consolidated results of operations.

Contingencies

Accounting for contingencies, including those matters described in Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements, is highly subjective and requires the use of judgments and estimates in assessing their magnitude and likely outcome. In many cases, the outcomes of such matters will be determined by third parties, including governmental or judicial bodies. The provisions made in the consolidated financial statements, as well as the related disclosures, represent management’s best estimates of the then current status of such matters and their potential outcome based on a review of the facts and in consultation with outside legal counsel where deemed appropriate. The Company regularly reviews contingencies and as new information becomes available may, in the future, adjust its associated liabilities.

For claims, litigation and proceedings and governmental investigations and inquiries not related to income taxes, where it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records liabilities in the consolidated financial statements and periodically adjusts these as appropriate. When the reasonable estimate of the loss is within a range of amounts, the minimum amount of the range is accrued unless some higher amount within the range is a better estimate than another amount within the range. In other instances, because of uncertainties related to the probable outcome and/or the amount or range of loss, management does not record a liability but discloses the contingency if significant. As additional information becomes available, the Company adjusts its assessments and estimates of such matters accordingly. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, regulatory, governmental investigations and inquiries, enforcement and similar matters and contingencies, particularly where the claimants seek large or indeterminate damages or where the parties assert novel legal theories or the matters involve a large number of parties, the Company cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be or the timing of any resolution of such matters. The Company also cannot predict the impact (if any) that any such matters may have on how its business is conducted, on its competitive position or on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As the process to resolve any pending matters progresses, management will continue to review the latest information available and assess its ability to predict the outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on its operations and financial condition. However, in light of the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of them, the absence of similar court rulings on the theories of law asserted and uncertainties regarding apportionment of any potential damages, an estimate of the range of possible losses cannot be made at this time.

The Company’s wholly-owned insurance subsidiary insures the Company against certain risks including but not limited to deductibles for worker’s compensation, employment practices litigation, employee medical claims and terrorism, for which the claims are not material to the Company. In addition, for claim years 2008 and 2009, the insurance subsidiary insured the Company for defense costs related to professional liability claims. For matters insured by the Company’s insurance subsidiary, Moody’s records liabilities based on the estimated total claims expected to be paid and total projected costs to defend a claim through its anticipated conclusion. The Company determines liabilities based on an assessment of management’s best estimate of claims to be paid and legal defense costs as well as actuarially determined estimates. The Cheyne SIV and Rhinebridge SIV matters, more fully discussed in Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements, were both cases from the 2008/2009 claims period, and accordingly the defense cost for these matters were insured by the Company’s insurance subsidiary. Defense costs for matters not self-insured by the Company’s wholly-owned insurance subsidiary are expensed as services are provided.

For income tax matters, the Company employs the prescribed methodology of Topic 740 of the ASC which requires a company to first determine whether it is more-likely-than-not (defined as a likelihood of more than fifty percent) that a tax position will be sustained

Table of Contents

based on its technical merits as of the reporting date, assuming that taxing authorities will examine the position and have full knowledge of all relevant information. A tax position that meets this more-likely-than-not threshold is then measured and recognized at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely to be realized upon effective settlement with a taxing authority.

Goodwill and Other Acquired Intangible Assets

On July 31 of each year, Moody’s evaluates its goodwill for impairment at the reporting unit level, defined as an operating segment or one level below an operating segment.

At July 31, 2014, the Company had six primary reporting units: two within the Company’s ratings business (one for the newly acquired ICRA business and one that encompasses all of Moody’s other ratings operations) and four reporting units within MA: RD&A, ERS, FSTC and Copal Amba. The RD&A reporting unit encompasses the distribution of investor-oriented research and data developed by MIS as part of its ratings process, in-depth research on major debt issuers, industry studies, economic research and commentary on topical events and credit analytic tools. The ERS reporting unit provides products and services that support the credit risk management and regulatory compliance activities of financial institutions, primarily delivered via software that is licensed or sold on a subscription basis. The FSTC reporting unit consists of the portion of the MA business that offers both credit training as well as other professional development training and implementation services. The Copal Amba reporting unit provides outsourced research and analytical services. In July 2014, a subsidiary of the Company acquired WebEquity Solutions, LLC, a leading provider of cloud-based loan origination solutions for financial institutions. WebEquity Solutions operates as part of the ERS reporting unit. In October 2014, the Company acquired Lewtan Technologies, a leading provider of analytical tools and data for the global structured finance market. Lewtan operates as part of the RD&A reporting unit.

The Company evaluates the recoverability of goodwill using a three-step impairment test approach at the reporting unit level. In the first step, the Company assesses various qualitative factors to determine whether the fair value of a reporting unit may be less than its carrying amount. If a determination is made that, based on the qualitative factors, that an impairment does not exist, the Company is not required to perform further testing. If the aforementioned qualitative assessment results in the Company concluding that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit may be less than its carrying amount, the fair value of the reporting unit will be determined and compared to its carrying value including goodwill. If the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds the carrying value of the net assets assigned to that unit, goodwill is not impaired and the Company is not required to perform further testing. If the fair value of the reporting unit is less than the carrying value, the Company must perform a third step of the impairment test to determine the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill. The implied fair value of the goodwill is determined based on the difference between the fair value of the reporting unit and the net fair value of the identifiable assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. If the implied fair value of the goodwill is less than its carrying value, the difference is recognized as an impairment charge. For the reporting units where the Company is consistently able to conclude that no impairment exists using only a qualitative approach, the Company’s accounting policy is to perform the second step of the aforementioned goodwill impairment assessment at least once every three years. At July 31, 2013, the Company performed the second step of the goodwill impairment test on all reporting units, which resulted in no impairment of goodwill.

At July 31, 2014 the Company performed quantitative assessments of the FSTC and Copal Amba reporting units and qualitative assessments for all remaining reporting units. The qualitative analyses resulted in the Company determining that it was not more likely than not that the fair value of these reporting units was less than their carrying amounts. The most significant factors in these qualitative assessments were an assessment of actual to projected results and a comparison of projected results in the prior year compared to current year projection for each reporting unit. Additionally, the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is assessed as well as the impact of various macroeconomic conditions and factors specific to the reporting unit that could impact future cash flows. No assessment was performed on the ICRA reporting unit due to the proximity of the acquisition date to the goodwill impairment assessment date. Accordingly, the carrying value of ICRA’s net assets acquired approximates fair value at July 31, 2014.

At July 31, 2014, the Company performed a quantitative analysis on the FSTC reporting unit due to the small amount of excess of fair value over net assets in the prior year and slower than anticipated growth in projected cash flows than was utilized in the quantitative assessment performed at July 31, 2013. This slower than anticipated growth in cash flows reflects various investment initiatives in the medium term for this business. The Company also performed a quantitative assessment on the Copal Amba reporting unit due to the acquisition of the Amba business subsequent to the July 31 impairment test dates so as to establish a base-line fair value. Both of these quantitative assessments resulted in no impairment to goodwill at July 31, 2014.

Determining the fair value of a reporting unit or an indefinite-lived acquired intangible asset involves the use of significant estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions include revenue growth rates and operating margins used to calculate projected future cash flows, risk-adjusted discount rates, future economic and market conditions, and appropriate comparable market metrics. The Company bases its fair value estimates on reasonable assumptions. However, as these estimates and assumptions are unpredictable and inherently uncertain, actual future results may differ from these estimates. In addition, the Company also makes certain judgments and assumptions in allocating shared assets and liabilities to determine the carrying values for each of its reporting units.

Table of Contents

Other assets and liabilities, including applicable corporate assets, are allocated to the extent they are related to the operation of respective reporting units.

Sensitivity Analyses and Key Assumptions for Deriving the Fair Value of a Reporting Unit

The following table identifies the amount of goodwill allocated to each reporting unit as of December 31, 2014 as well as the amount by which the net assets of each reporting unit would exceed the fair value under Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test as prescribed in ASC Topic 350, assuming hypothetical reductions in their fair values as of the date of the last quantitative goodwill impairment assessment for all reporting units. For the FSTC and Copal Amba reporting units, the fair value was calculated as of July 31, 2014. For all remaining reporting units excluding ERS, the fair value was calculated as of July 31, 2013, as there have been no qualitative factors that have resulted in the Company deeming it necessary to perform a quantitative assessment subsequent to this date. For ERS, the WebEquity price was added to the prior year fair value as the WebEquity purchase price approximated its fair value as of July 31, 2014 due to the proximity of the acquisition to the goodwill impairment assessment date.

As can be seen from the table above, the reporting unit most at risk for potential impairment is the FSTC reporting unit and failure to meet its financial projections could result in further goodwill impairment (there was a goodwill impairment charge of $12.2 million for this reporting unit in the fourth quarter of 2012). This business is, in part, sensitive to the staffing levels and profitability of the global financial services industry, particularly in Canada and EMEA.

Based on the July 31, 2013 valuation, the ERS reporting unit also carried some risk of potential impairment. Management of the ERS reporting unit continues to focus on expanding market penetration as well as enhancing the scalability of its products and services. This will reduce margins in the near term but is anticipated that it will enhance margins in the medium to long-term.

There could be a future goodwill impairment charge if FSTC fails or ERS significantly fails to meet its current financial plans.

Methodologies and significant estimates utilized in determining of the fair value of reporting units:

The following is a discussion regarding the Company’s methodology for determining the fair value of its reporting units as of the date of each reporting unit’s last quantitative test (July 31, 2014 for FSTC and Copal Amba; July 31, 2013 for the remaining reporting units excluding ICRA). ICRA has not yet been subject to a full quantitative impairment analysis due to the proximity of the acquisition of this entity to the annual goodwill impairment assessment date.

The fair value of each reporting unit was estimated using a discounted cash flow methodology and comparable public company and precedent transaction multiples. The DCF analysis requires significant estimates, including projections of future operating results and cash flows of each reporting unit, which is based on internal budgets and strategic plans, expected long-term growth rates, terminal values, weighted average cost of capital and the effects of external factors and market conditions. Changes in these estimates and assumptions could materially affect the estimated fair value of each reporting unit which could result in an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of goodwill, which could be material to the Company’s financial position and results of operations. Moody’s allocates newly acquired goodwill to reporting units based on the reporting unit expected to benefit from the acquisition. The Company evaluates its reporting units on an annual basis, or more frequently if there are changes in the reporting structure of the Company due to acquisitions or realignments.

Table of Contents

The sensitivity analyses on the future cash flows and WACC assumptions described below are as of the date of last quantitative assessment for each reporting unit. The following discusses the key assumptions utilized in the discounted cash flow valuation methodology which requires significant management judgment:

Amortizable intangible assets are reviewed for recoverability whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. There were no such events or changes during 2014 that would indicate that the carrying amount of amortizable intangible assets in any of the Company’s reporting units may not be recoverable. This determination was made based on continued growth, consistent with operating and strategic plans for the reporting unit where the intangible asset resides. Additionally, there were no events or circumstances during 2014 that would indicate the need for an adjustment of the remaining useful lives of these amortizable intangible assets.

Pension and Other Retirement Benefits

The expenses, assets and liabilities that Moody’s reports for its Retirement Plans are dependent on many assumptions concerning the outcome of future events and circumstances. These assumptions include the following:

The discount rates selected to measure the present value of the Company’s benefit obligation for its Retirement Plans as of December 31, 2014 were derived using a cash flow matching method whereby the Company compares each plan’s projected payment obligations by year with the corresponding yield on the Citibank pension discount curve. The cash flows by plan are then discounted back to present value to determine the discount rate applicable to each plan.

Moody’s major assumptions vary by plan and assumptions used are set forth in Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements. In determining these assumptions, the Company consults with outside actuaries and other advisors as deemed appropriate. While the Company believes that the assumptions used in its calculations are reasonable, differences in actual experience or changes in assumptions could have a significant effect on the expenses, assets and liabilities related to the Company’s Retirement Plans. Additionally, the Company has updated its mortality assumption by adopting the newly released RP-2014 mortality tables and accompanying mortality improvement scale MP-2014 to reflect the latest information regarding future mortality expectations by the Society of Actuaries.

Table of Contents

When actual plan experience differs from the assumptions used, actuarial gains or losses arise. Excluding differences between the expected long-term rate of return assumption and actual experience on plan assets, the Company amortizes, as a component of annual pension expense, total outstanding gains or losses over the estimated average future working lifetime of active plan participants to the extent that the gain/loss exceeds 10% of the greater of the beginning-of-year projected benefit obligation or the market-related value of plan assets. For Moody’s Retirement Plans, the total actuarial losses as of December 31, 2014 that have not been recognized in annual expense are $176.9 million, and Moody’s expects to recognize a net periodic expense of $13.9 million in 2015 related to the amortization of actuarial losses.

For Moody’s funded U.S. pension plan, the differences between the expected long-term rate of return assumption and actual experience could also affect the net periodic pension expense. As permitted under ASC Topic 715, the Company spreads the impact of asset experience over a five-year period for purposes of calculating the market-related value of assets that is used in determining the expected return on assets’ component of annual expense and in calculating the total unrecognized gain or loss subject to amortization. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has an unrecognized asset gain of $5.4 million, of which $0.8 million will be recognized in the market-related value of assets that is used to calculate the expected return on assets’ component of 2016 expense.

The table below shows the estimated effect that a one percentage-point decrease in each of these assumptions will have on Moody’s 2015 operating income. These effects have been calculated using the Company’s current projections of 2015 expenses, assets and liabilities related to Moody’s Retirement Plans, which could change as updated data becomes available.

A one percentage-point increase in assumed healthcare cost trend rates will not affect 2015 projected expenses. Based on current projections, the Company estimates that expenses related to Retirement Plans will be $43.7 million in 2015 compared with $30.6 million in 2014. The expected expense increase in 2015 reflects the effects of higher benefit obligations primarily due to lower discount rate assumptions, higher amortization of actuarial losses, and a lower assumed long term rate of return on pension assets.

Stock-Based Compensation

The Company records compensation expense for all share-based payment award transactions granted to employees based on the fair value of the equity instrument at the time of grant. This includes stock options and restricted stock. The fair value of each stock option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model that uses assumptions and estimates that the Company believes are reasonable. Some of the assumptions and estimates, such as share price volatility and expected option holding period, are based in part on Moody’s experience during the period since becoming a public company. The use of different assumptions and estimates in the Black-Scholes option pricing model could produce materially different estimated fair values for option awards and related expense.

An increase in the following assumptions would have had the following estimated effect on operating income in 2014 (dollars in millions):

Income Taxes

The Company is subject to income taxes in the U.S. and various foreign jurisdictions. The Company’s tax assets and liabilities are affected by the amounts charged for services provided and expenses incurred as well as other tax matters such as intercompany transactions. The Company accounts for income taxes under the asset and liability method in accordance with ASC Topic 740. Therefore, income tax expense is based on reported income before income taxes, and deferred income taxes reflect the effect of temporary differences between the amounts of assets and liabilities that are recognized for financial reporting purposes and the amounts that are recognized for income tax purposes.

The Company is subject to tax audits in various jurisdictions which involve Legacy Tax and other tax matters. The Company regularly assesses the likely outcomes of such audits in order to determine the appropriateness of liabilities for UTPs. The Company classifies

Table of Contents

interest related to income taxes as a component of interest expense in the Company’s consolidated financial statements and associated penalties, if any, as part of other non-operating expenses.

For UTPs, ASC Topic 740 requires a company to first determine whether it is more-likely-than-not (defined as a likelihood of more than fifty percent) that a tax position will be sustained based on its technical merits as of the reporting date, assuming that taxing authorities will examine the position and have full knowledge of all relevant information. A tax position that meets this more-likely-than-not threshold is then measured and recognized at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely to be realized upon effective settlement with a taxing authority. As the determination of liabilities related to UTPs and associated interest and penalties requires significant estimates to be made by the Company, there can be no assurance that the Company will accurately predict the outcomes of these audits, and thus the eventual outcomes could have a material impact on the Company’s operating results or financial condition.

For certain of its non-U.S. subsidiaries, the Company has deemed the undistributed earnings relating to these subsidiaries to be indefinitely reinvested within its foreign operations. Accordingly, the Company has not provided deferred income taxes on these indefinitely reinvested earnings. It is not practicable to determine the amount of deferred taxes that might be required to be provided if such earnings were distributed in the future due to complexities in the tax laws and in the hypothetical calculations that would have to be made.

Other Estimates

In addition, there are other accounting estimates within Moody’s consolidated financial statements, including recoverability of deferred tax assets, anticipated dividend distributions from non-U.S. subsidiaries and valuation of investments in affiliates. Management believes the current assumptions and other considerations used to estimate amounts reflected in Moody’s consolidated financial statements are appropriate. However, if actual experience differs from the assumptions and other considerations used in estimating amounts reflected in Moody’s consolidated financial statements, the resulting changes could have a material adverse effect on Moody’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for further information on significant accounting policies that impact Moody’s.

REPORTABLE SEGMENTS

The Company is organized into two reportable segments at December 31, 2014: MIS and MA.

The MIS segment is comprised primarily of all of the Company’s ratings operations. The MIS segment consists of five lines of business – CFG, SFG, FIG, PPIF and MIS Other. The ratings LOBs generate revenue principally from fees for the assignment and ongoing monitoring of credit ratings on debt obligations and the entities that issue such obligations in markets worldwide. The MIS Other LOB consists of certain non-ratings operations managed by MIS which consists of non-rating revenue from ICRA as well as certain research and fixed income pricing service operations in the Asia-Pacific region.

The MA segment develops a wide range of products and services that support financial analysis and risk management activities of institutional participants in global financial markets. The MA segment consists of three lines of business – RD&A, ERS and PS.

In December 2013, a subsidiary of the Company acquired Amba, a provider of investment research and quantitative analytics for global financial institutions. Amba is part of the MA reportable segment and its revenue is included in the PS LOB. In June 2014, a subsidiary of the Company acquired a controlling stake in ICRA, a leading provider of credit ratings and research in India. ICRA is part of the MIS reportable segment and its ratings revenue is included in the respective ratings LOBs of MIS while its non-ratings revenue is included in the MIS Other LOB. In July 2014, a subsidiary of the Company acquired WebEquity, a leading provider of cloud-based loan origination solutions for financial institutions. WebEquity is part of the MA reporting segment and its revenue is included in the ERS LOB. In October 2014, the Company acquired Lewtan, a leading provider of analytical tools and data for the global structured finance market. Lewtan is part of the MA reportable segment and its revenue is included in the RD&A LOB.

Pursuant to the acquisition of ICRA, the Company realigned certain components of its reportable segments in the fourth quarter of 2014. This realignment resulted in the creation of the MIS Other LOB which now consists of non-ratings revenue from ICRA as well as certain research and fixed income pricing revenue in the Asia-Pacific region which was previously reported in the RD&A LOB of MA. These businesses are all managed by MIS and the expenses from these operations will be included in the MIS reportable segment. All prior period results for both MIS and MA have been restated to reflect this realignment and the impact of the realignment was not significant to MIS’s or MA’s previously reported results.

The following is a discussion of the results of operations of the Company and its reportable segments. Total MIS revenue and total MA expenses include the intersegment royalty revenue for MIS and expense charged to MA for the rights to use and distribute content, data and products developed by MIS. The royalty rate charged by MIS approximates the fair value of the aforementioned content, data and products developed by MIS. Total MA revenue and total MIS expenses include intersegment fees charged to MIS from MA for the

Table of Contents

use of certain MA products and services in MIS’s ratings process. These fees charged by MA are generally equal to the costs incurred by MA to provide these products and services. Overhead charges and corporate expenses which exclusively benefit one segment are fully charged to that segment. Additionally, overhead costs and corporate expenses of the Company which benefit both segments are generally allocated to each segment based on a revenue-split methodology. Overhead expenses include costs such as rent and occupancy, information technology and support staff such as finance, human resources and information technology.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Year ended December 31, 2014 compared with year ended December 31, 2013

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Moody’s Corporation