TCR_Public/140223.mbx          T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

            Sunday, February 23, 2014, Vol. 18, No. 53


                            Headlines

ANCHORAGE CAPITAL: Moody's Rates $12.8MM Class E Notes '(P)B3'
APIDOS CDO I: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes From 'BB+'
ARES XXVIII: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on $22.25MM Class E Notes
AVENUE CLO II: Moody's Ups Rating on $19MM Cl. B-2L Notes to Ba2
BUCKEYE TOBACCO: Moody's Confirms B3 Rating on 8 Serial Bonds

CAPITAL AUTO 2013-1: Moody's Ups Rating on Class E Notes to 'Ba1'
CAPTEC GRANTOR: Moody's Lowers Rating on Cl. A-10 Notes to 'Ca'
CARLYLE ARNAGE: Moody's Hikes $20MM Cl. B-2L Notes Rating to Ba1
CD 2007-CD4: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 12 Classes of Certs
CIFC FUNDING 2013-III: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes

CITIGROUP 2004-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 4 Cert. Classes
CITIGROUP 2014-A: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class B3 Notes
COMM 2012-LC4: Moody's Affirms 'B2' Rating on Class F Notes
COMM 2014-TWC: DBRS Finalizes (P)BB Rating on Class E Securities
CREDIT SUISSE 1997-C2: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on Cl. I Certs

EMAC OWNER: Moody's Lowers Ratings on 2 Note Classes to Caa3
FIRST UNION-LEHMAN: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on Cl. IO Certs.
G-FORCE CDO 2006-1: S&P Affirms 'CCC-' Ratings on 2 Note Classes
GREENWICH CAPITAL: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Note Classes to C
GS MORTGAGE 2005-GG4: Fitch Affirms D Rating on $19.2MM J Certs

GS MORTGAGE 2014-NEW: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
GULF STREAM-COMPASS 2005-II: Moody's Ups D Notes Rating to Ba1
ING IM 2014-1: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating on $7MM Class E Notes
JP MORGAN 2006-RR1: Moody's Affirms Ca Rating on Cl. A-1 Notes
JP MORGAN 2012-C6: Moody's Affirms 'B2' Rating on Class H Certs

KKR FINANCIAL 2007-A: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class F Notes
KODIAK CDO I: S&P Lowers Rating on Class B Notes to 'D'
LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2006-C1: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Cl. C Notes
LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2007-C7: S&P Cuts Ratings on 2 Notes to 'D'
LIGHTPOINT CLO VII: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Cl. D Notes

MERRILL LYNCH 2002-CANADA 8: Moody's Ups J Notes Rating to B1
MERRILL LYNCH 2004-BPC1: Fitch Affirms CC Rating on 2 Cert Classes
MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ14: S&P Affirms CCC- Ratings on 2 Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2012-C4: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. G Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2014-C14: DBRS Finalizes BB Rating on F Securities

MORGAN STANLEY 2014-C14: Fitch Rates $12MM Class G Certs 'B-sf'
MORTGAGE CAPITAL 1998-MC2: Fitch Ups $13.7MM Class J Certs to 'BB'
NEWSTAR COMMERCIAL: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to CCC+
OAKTREE CLO 2014-1: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
PHOENIX CLO II: Moodys Affirms 'Ba3' Rating on 2 Note Classes

REALT 2005-2: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on Class K Notes
REALT 2006-2: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on 3 Cert Classes
RUTLAND RATED: S&P Reinstates 'CCC-' Ratings on 2 Note Classes
SAGUARO ISSUER: Moody's Reviews 'B2' Rating on 2 Securities Series
SIERRA CLO II: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class B-2L Notes

UBS-BB 2013-C5: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. F Certificates
VENTURE XVI: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating on $27MM CL. B2L Notes

* Fitch Lowers 10 Bonds in 8 CMBS Resecuritizations and CRE CDOs
* Moody's Hikes Ratings on $1.04 Billion of Subprime RMBS
* Moody's Takes Action on $1BB of Subprime RMBS Issued 2005-2006
* Moody's Takes Action on $83.3MM US RMBS Issued 2004-2007
* S&P Withdraws Ratings on 2 Classes From 2 CDO Transactions

* S&P Withdraws Ratings on 32 Classes from 16 CDO Transactions


                             *********

ANCHORAGE CAPITAL: Moody's Rates $12.8MM Class E Notes '(P)B3'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
seven classes of notes to be issued by Anchorage Capital CLO 3,
Ltd. (the "Issuer" or "Anchorage 3").

Moody's rating action is as follows:

  $300,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
  2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

  $45,250,000 Class A-2a Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
  2026 (the "Class A-2a Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

  U.S.$21,000,000 Class A-2b Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due
  2026 (the "Class A-2b Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

  $24,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
  Notes due 2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

  $36,250,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
  Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

  $30,500,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
  2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

  $12,750,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
  2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

The Class A-1 Notes, the Class A-2a Notes, the Class A-2b Notes,
the Class B Notes, the Class C Notes, the Class D Notes and the
Class E Notes are referred to herein, collectively, as the "Rated
Notes."

Moody's issues provisional ratings in advance of the final sale of
financial instruments, but these ratings only represent Moody's
preliminary credit opinions. Upon a conclusive review of a
transaction and associated documentation, Moody's will endeavor to
assign definitive ratings. A definitive rating, if any, may differ
from a provisional rating.

Ratings Rationale

Moody's provisional ratings of the Rated Notes address the
expected losses posed to noteholders. The provisional ratings
reflect the risks due to defaults on the underlying portfolio of
assets, the transaction's legal structure, and the characteristics
of the underlying assets.

Anchorage 3 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up
to 10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The underlying portfolio is expected to be
approximately 55% ramped as of the closing date.

Anchorage Capital Group, L.L.C. (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of
the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's four year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest
unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit
risk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue subordinated
notes. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage
tests which, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds
to pay down the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in November 2013.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case
assumptions:

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 50

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2750

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 43.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
November 2013.

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Ratings

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was an
important component in determining the ratings assigned to the
Rated Notes. This sensitivity analysis includes increased default
probability relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2750 to 3163)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2a Notes: -2

Class A-2b Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -2

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2750 to 3575)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2a Notes: -3

Class A-2b Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -4

Moody's V Scores provide a relative assessment of the quality of
available credit information and the potential variability around
the various inputs to a rating determination. The V Score ranks
transactions by the potential for significant rating changes owing
to uncertainty around the assumptions due to data quality,
historical performance, the level of disclosure, transaction
complexity, the modeling and the transaction governance that
underlie the ratings. V Scores apply to the entire transaction,
rather than individual tranches.


APIDOS CDO I: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes From 'BB+'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, and D notes from Apidos CDO I, a U.S. collateralized loan
obligation transaction managed by Apidos Capital Management LLC,
and removed the ratings from CreditWatch with positive
implications.  At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed its
'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class A-1 and A-2 notes.

The upgrades mainly reflect paydowns to the class A-1 notes and a
subsequent increase in the overcollateralization (O/C) available
to support all of the notes since October 2013, when S&P last took
a rating action on this transaction.  Since then, the transaction
has paid down the class A-1 notes by approximately $28.0 million.
The paydowns have left the class A-1 notes at 7.29% of their
original balance.

S&P's analysis accounts for Apidos CDO I's significant amount of
long-dated assets (underlying securities that mature after the
transaction's stated maturity).  Based on the January 2014 trustee
report, the long-dated assets constituted 8.53% of the underlying
portfolio.  S&P's analysis factored in the potential market value
or settlement-related risk arising from the remaining securities'
possible liquidation on the transaction's legal final maturity
date.

The upgrades also reflect an improvement in the O/C available to
support all of the notes, primarily because of the aforementioned
paydowns.  The trustee reported the following O/C ratios in the
January 2014 monthly report:

   -- The class A O/C ratio was 218.31% compared with 190.59% in
      August 2013.

   -- The class B O/C ratio was 152.63% compared with 143.42% in
      August 2013.

   -- The class C O/C ratio was 128.17% compared with 123.96% in
      August 2013.

   -- The class D O/C ratio was 116.67% compared with 114.41% in
      August 2013.

S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A-1 and A-2 notes to reflect
the available credit support consistent with the current ratings.

S&P's rating on the class D notes is constrained by its
application of the largest obligor default test, a supplemental
stress test it introduced as part of its 2009 corporate criteria
update.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
assigned to the notes remain consistent with the credit
enhancement available to support them, and S&P will take further
rating actions as it deem necessary.

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

Apidos CDO I
                   Rating
Class        To           From
B            AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C            AA+ (sf)     A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D            BBB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Apidos CDO I

Class        Rating
A-1          AAA (sf)
A-2          AAA (sf)

TRANSACTION INFORMATION
Issuer:             Apidos CDO I
Co-issuer:          Apidos CDO I Inc.
Collateral manager: Apidos Capital Management LLC
Underwriter:        Credit Suisse Holdings (USA) Inc.
Trustee:            The Bank of New York Mellon
Transaction type:   Cash flow collateralized loan obligation


ARES XXVIII: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on $22.25MM Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on Ares
XXVIII CLO Ltd./Ares XXVIII CLO LLC's $474.75 million floating-
rate notes following the transaction's effective date as of
Nov. 12, 2013.

Most U.S. cash flow collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) close
before purchasing the full amount of their targeted level of
portfolio collateral.  On the closing date, the collateral manager
typically covenants to purchase the remaining collateral within
the guidelines specified in the transaction documents to reach the
target level of portfolio collateral.  Typically, the CLO
transaction documents specify a date by which the targeted level
of portfolio collateral must be reached.  The "effective date" for
a CLO transaction is usually the earlier of the date on which the
transaction acquires the target level of portfolio collateral, or
the date defined in the transaction documents.  Most transaction
documents contain provisions directing the trustee to request the
rating agencies that have issued ratings upon closing to affirm
the ratings issued on the closing date after reviewing the
effective date portfolio (typically referred to as an "effective
date rating affirmation").

An effective date rating affirmation reflects S&P's opinion that
the portfolio collateral purchased by the issuer, as reported to
S&P by the trustee and collateral manager, in combination with the
transaction's structure, provides sufficient credit support to
maintain the ratings that S&P assigned on the transaction's
closing date.  The effective date reports provide a summary of
certain information that S&P used in its analysis and the results
of its review based on the information presented to S&P.

S&P believes the transaction may see some benefit from allowing a
window of time after the closing date for the collateral manager
to acquire the remaining assets for a CLO transaction.  This
window of time is typically referred to as a "ramp-up period."
Because some CLO transactions may acquire most of their assets
from the new issue leveraged loan market, the ramp-up period may
give collateral managers the flexibility to acquire a more diverse
portfolio of assets.

For a CLO that has not purchased its full target level of
portfolio collateral by the closing date, S&P's ratings on the
closing date and prior to its effective date review are generally
based on the application of its criteria to a combination of
purchased collateral, collateral committed to be purchased, and
the indicative portfolio of assets provided to S&P by the
collateral manager, and may also reflect its assumptions about the
transaction's investment guidelines.  This is because not all
assets in the portfolio have been purchased.

"When we receive a request to issue an effective date rating
affirmation, we perform quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the transaction in accordance with our criteria to assess whether
the initial ratings remain consistent with the credit enhancement
based on the effective date collateral portfolio.  Our analysis
relies on the use of CDO Evaluator to estimate a scenario default
rate at each rating level based on the effective date portfolio,
full cash flow modeling to determine the appropriate percentile
break-even default rate at each rating level, the application of
our supplemental tests, and the analytical judgment of a rating
committee," S&P said.

"In our published effective date report, we discuss our analysis
of the information provided by the transaction's trustee and
collateral manager in support of their request for effective date
rating affirmation.  In most instances, we intend to publish an
effective date report each time we issue an effective date rating
affirmation on a publicly rated U.S. cash flow CLO," S&P added.

"On an ongoing basis after we issue an effective date rating
affirmation, we will periodically review whether, in our view, the
current ratings on the notes remain consistent with the credit
quality of the assets, the credit enhancement available to support
the notes, and other factors, and take rating actions as we deem
necessary," S&P added.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Ares XXVIII CLO Ltd./Ares XXVIII CLO LLC

Class                      Rating                       Amount
                                                       (mil. $)
A                          AAA (sf)                     310.00
B-1                        AA (sf)                       57.50
B-2                        AA (sf)                       10.00
C-1(deferrable)            A (sf)                        26.00
C-2(deferrable)            A (sf)                        10.00
D (deferrable)             BBB (sf)                      26.00
E (deferrable)             BB (sf)                       22.25
F (deferrable)             B (sf)                        13.00


AVENUE CLO II: Moody's Ups Rating on $19MM Cl. B-2L Notes to Ba2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Avenue CLO II, Ltd.:

  $19,250,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due October 30,
  2017, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on August 13, 2013
  Upgraded to A1 (sf);

  $19,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due October 30, 2017
  (current outstanding balance of $18,032,863), Upgraded to
  Ba2(sf); previously on August 13, 2013 Confirmed at Ba3 (sf).

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

  $320,000,000 Class A-1L Floating Rate Notes Due October 30,
  2017 (current outstanding balance of $21,286,669), Affirmed Aaa
  (sf); previously on August 13, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf);

  $35,500,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due October 30,
  2017, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 13, 2013 Affirmed
  Aaa (sf);

  $22,500,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due October 30,
  2017, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 13, 2013 Upgraded
  to Aaa (sf).

Avenue CLO II, Ltd., issued in August 2005, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in
October 2011.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since August 2013. The Class A-1L notes
have been paid down by approximately 60% or $31.7 million since
August 2013. Based on the trustee's January 2014 report, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Senior Class A, Class A,
Class B-1 and Class B-2L notes are reported at 195.33%, 150.79%,
126.18% and 108.54%, respectively, versus July 2013 levels of
154.75%, 132.58%, 118.10%, and 107.14%, respectively.

Nevertheless, the credit quality of the portfolio has deteriorated
since the last rating action. Based on the trustee's January 2014
report, the weighted average rating factor is currently 2968
compared to 2807 in July 2013.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will continue and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed defaulted recoveries
assuming the lower of the market price and the recovery rate in
order to account for potential volatility in market prices.
Realization of higher than assumed recoveries would positively
impact the CLO.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):


BUCKEYE TOBACCO: Moody's Confirms B3 Rating on 8 Serial Bonds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has updated its methodology for rating
tobacco settlement revenue securitizations. The updates are
limited to cash flow modeling assumptions related to the non-
participating manufacturer (NPM) adjustment provisions of the
Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that was signed by certain
states and territories and tobacco companies in 1998.

As a result of the methodology update, and the conclusion of its
review of tobacco settlement revenue bonds, Moody's has upgraded
the ratings of 55 tranches, downgraded the ratings of 7 tranches,
confirmed the ratings of 73 tranches that were placed on review
with direction uncertain on January 22, 2013, and affirmed the
ratings of 3 tranches. The bonds are backed by payments that
domestic tobacco manufacturers owe to 52 US states and territories
under the MSA.

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions reflect the updated methodology as well as
corrections to certain errors in the cash flow models used in
rating such bonds previously announced by Moody's on 15 August
2013.

Moody's made changes to its rating methodology in response to the
December 2012 settlement of the NPM adjustment disputes for 2003-
2012 by 22 US states and territories, which changed calculation of
the NPM adjustment for the states that settled the disputes.

In addition, Moody's made two assumption changes for all states,
including those that have not settled their NPM adjustment
disputes. The first is the assumption that the tobacco companies
will continue making NPM adjustments for the entire duration of
the transactions, and the second is that the states will recover
the NPM adjustments 8-12 years later.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Actions:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Tobacco Settlement Revenues Securitizations"
published in February 2014.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the ratings:

Moody's could upgrade the ratings if the annual rate of cigarette
consumption decline slows down. Conversely, Moody's could
downgrade the ratings if the annual rate of decline in the volume
of domestic cigarette shipments increases beyond the 3%-to-4% or
if an arbitration panel finds that a state that has not settled
its NPM adjustment dispute was not diligent in enforcing a certain
statute, which could lead to a significant decline in cash flow to
that state.

The complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Arkansas Development Finance Authority, Tobacco Settlement
Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 (Biosciences Institutes and College of
Public Health Projects)

Term Bond Class 1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Term Bond Class 2, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Term Bond Class 3, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Issuer: Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, Tobacco
Settlement Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2007 (State of Ohio)

Series 2007A-2-1 Senior Current Interest Turbo Term Bonds,
Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf) Placed
Under Review Direction Uncertain

Series 2007A-2-2 Senior Current Interest Turbo Term Bonds,
Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf) Placed
Under Review Direction Uncertain

Series 2007A-2-3 Senior Current Interest Turbo Term Bonds,
Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf) Placed
Under Review Direction Uncertain

Series 2007A-2-4 Senior Current Interest Turbo Term Bonds,
Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf) Placed
Under Review Direction Uncertain

Series 2007A-2-5 Senior Current Interest Turbo Term Bonds,
Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf) Placed
Under Review Direction Uncertain

Series 2007A-2-6 Senior Current Interest Turbo Term Bonds,
Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf) Placed
Under Review Direction Uncertain

Series 2007A-2-7 Senior Current Interest Turbo Term Bonds,
Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf) Placed
Under Review Direction Uncertain

Series 2007-A-3 Senior Convertible Capital Appreciation Turbo Term
Bonds, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Series 2007A-1-9 Senior Current Interest Serial Bonds, Upgraded to
Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Series 2007A-1-10 Senior Current Interest Serial Bonds, Upgraded
to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Series 2007A-1-11 Senior Current Interest Serial Bonds, Affirmed
A1 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Series 2007A-1-12 Senior Current Interest Serial Bonds, Upgraded
to A3 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: California County Tobacco Securitization Agency (Los
Angeles County Securitization Corporation) Series 2006A
Convertible Turbo Bonds

Cl. 2006A-1, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Cl. 2006A-2, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Cl. 2006A-3, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Cl. 2006A-4, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Cl. 2006A-5, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: California County Tobacco Securitization Agency (Merced
County Tobacco Funding Corporation) - Tobacco Settlement Asset-
Backed Refunding Bonds

2005A-2, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B1 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005A-3, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005A-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 Ba2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: California Statewide Financing Authority (Pooled Tobacco
Securitization Program) , Series 2002

Ser. 2002A Term Bonds 2, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002A Term Bonds 3, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002B Term Bonds 2, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002B Term Bonds 3, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002A Term Bonds 1, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002B Term Bonds 1, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002A Serial Bonds 10, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on
Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Ser. 2002A Serial Bonds 11, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on
Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Ser. 2002B Serial Bonds 10, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on
Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Ser. 2002B Serial Bonds 11, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on
Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Ser. 2002A Serial Bonds 12, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on
Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Ser. 2002A Serial Bonds 13, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on
May 14, 2012 Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Ser. 2002B Serial Bonds 12, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on
Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Ser. 2002B Serial Bonds 13, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on
May 14, 2012 Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Issuer: Children's Trust, Series 2002

Term Bond 1, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Serial Bond 7, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Term Bond 2, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term Bond 3, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: City of San Diego Tobacco Settlement Revenue Funding
Corporation

Term Bonds, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: District of Columbia Tobacco Settlement Financing
Corporation, Series 2001

Term Bond 1, Confirmed at A1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 A1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term Bond 2, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term Bond 3, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Serial Bond Class 7, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Issuer: Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corporation (2007
Indenture)

CVT Bds A-2, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

TT Bds A-1-1, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

TT Bds A-1-2, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

TT Bds A-1-3, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

TT Bds A-1-4, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

CI Bds A-1-9, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

CI Bds A-1-10, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

CI Bds A-1-11, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

CI Bds A-1-12, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

CI Bds A-1-13, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Michigan Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority, Tobacco
Settlement Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2006 and 2008

Series 2006A Fixed Rate Turbo Term Bonds, Confirmed at B2 (sf);
previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction
Uncertain

Series 2008A Current Interest Turbo Term Bonds, Confirmed at B2
(sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2 (sf) Placed Under Review
Direction Uncertain

Issuer: New York Counties Tobacco Trust I, Series 2000

Term Bond 1, Confirmed at A1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 A1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Flex. Amort. Term Bond 2, Confirmed at A1 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 A1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Flex. Amort. Term Bond 3, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on
Jan 22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Flex. Amort. Term Bond 4, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on
Jan 22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Serial Bond Class 13, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Serial Bond Class 14, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Issuer: New York Counties Tobacco Trust II, Series 2001

Super Sinker Term Bond 2, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on
Jan 22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Super Sinker Term Bond 3, Confirmed at Baa2 (sf); previously on
Jan 22, 2013 Baa2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Serial Bond Class 9, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Serial Bond Class 10, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Super Sinker Term Bond 1, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Serial Bond Class 11, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Issuer: New York Counties Tobacco Trust III, Series 2003

2003 TTB-2, Confirmed at A1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 A1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2003 TTB-3, Confirmed at A3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 A3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Niagara Tobacco Asset Securitization Corporation, Series
2000

Term 3, Confirmed at Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 Baa2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term 4, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 Baa3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term 5, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 Baa3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Serial 18, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Serial 19, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Serial 20, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Northern Tobacco Securitization Corporation, Series 2006

2006-A-2, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2006-A-1, Confirmed at Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 Ba1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2006-A-3, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Rensselaer Tobacco Asset Securitization Corporation,
Series A

Serial Bond Class 9, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Serial Bond Class 10, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Super Sinker Term Bond, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jan 22,
2013 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Serial Bond Class 11, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Super Sinker Term Bond 2, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on
Jan 22, 2013 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Super Sinker Term Bond 3, Downgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on
Jan 22, 2013 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Rockland Tobacco Asset Securitization Corporation, Series
2001

Super Sinker Term Bond 2, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on
Jan 22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Super Sinker Term Bond 3, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on
Jan 22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Super Sinker Term Bond 1, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: The California County Tobacco Securitization Agency (
Fresno County Tobacco Funding Corporation), Series 2002

Ser. 2002 Serial Bonds 6, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep
8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Ser. 2002 Serial Bonds 7, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep
8, 2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Ser. 2002 Term Bonds 1, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jan 22,
2013 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002 Term Bonds 2, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Jan 22,
2013 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002 Term Bond 4, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002 Term Bonds 3, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Baa2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: The California County Tobacco Securitization Agency
(Alameda County Tobacco Asset Securitization Corporation), Series
2002

Ser. 2002 Turbo Bond 3, Confirmed at Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002 Turbo Bond 4, Confirmed at Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Ba2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002 Turbo Bond 2, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Baa2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: The California County Tobacco Securitization Agency
(Stanislaus County Tobacco Funding Corporation), Series 2002

Ser. 2002A Term Bond 1, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ser. 2002A Term Bond 2, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Tobacco Securitization Authority of Northern California
(Sacramento County)

2005A-1-1, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005A-1-3, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005A-1-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 Caa1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005A-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 Caa1 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Tobacco Securitization Authority of Southern California
(San Diego)

2006A-1-3, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2006A-1-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2006A-1-2, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B3 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Tobacco Settlement Authority (Iowa), Series 2005

2005B TNs, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005-C1 TNs, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005-C2 TNs, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005-C3 TNs, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2005A TNs, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 Ba1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority (Taxable Tobacco
Settlement Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2007) West Virginia

2007A TT CIBS, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 B2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation (New Jersey),
Series 2007-1

2007-1A Term Bond 1, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jan 22,
2013 B1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2007-1A Term Bond 2, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jan 22,
2013 B1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2007-1A Term Bond 3, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22,
2013 B2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2007-1A Term Bond 4, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22,
2013 B2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2007-1A Term Bond 5, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jan 22,
2013 B2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2007-1A Serial Bond 7, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

2007-1A Serial Bond 8, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

2007-1A Serial Bond 9, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

2007-1A Serial Bond 10, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on May
14, 2012 Upgraded to A2 (sf)

2007-1A Serial Bond 11, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on May 14,
2012 Upgraded to A3 (sf)

2007-1A Serial Bond 12, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Sep 8,
2011 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation (Virgin Islands),
Series 2001

Term Bond 1, Confirmed at A1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 A1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term Bond 2, Confirmed at A3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013 A3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Serial Bond 7, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2011
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Issuer: Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation, Series 2002A and
2002B

Ser. 2002A Tax-Exempt Term Bond 3, Confirmed at Ba1 (sf);
previously on Jan 22, 2013 Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction
Uncertain

Ser. 2002A Tax-Exempt Term Bond 2, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf);
previously on Jan 22, 2013 Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction
Uncertain

Ser. 2002A Tax-Exempt Term Bond 1, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously
on Jan 22, 2013 Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation, Series 2007

2007A Turbo Term Bonds, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 B2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2007B-1 Turbo Term Bonds, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 B2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

2007B-2 Turbo Term Bonds, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jan
22, 2013 B2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Ulster Tobacco Asset Securitization Corporation, Series
2001

Term CI Bond-1, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
B1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term CI Bond-2, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
B1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term CCA Bond-2, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
B1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Term CCA Bond-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2013
B1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain


CAPITAL AUTO 2013-1: Moody's Ups Rating on Class E Notes to 'Ba1'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded 12 subordinate securities
and affirmed an additional 20 securities from the revolving 2013
vintage securitizations sponsored by Ally Financial Inc. (Ba3,
Stable).

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 2013-1

Class A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 25, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 25, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 25, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)
Class A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 25, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class B, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 25, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Class C, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jan 25, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Class D, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 25, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 2013-2

Class A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class B, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Class C, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Class D, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Baa1 (sf)

Class E, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 2013-3

Class A-1a, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-1b, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class B, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Class C, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Class D, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf)

Class E, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 2013-4

Class A-1 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 27, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-2 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 27, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 27, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-4 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 27, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Nov 27, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Nov 27, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Nov 27, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Nov 27, 2013
Definitive Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of a reduction in the collateral pools'
lifetime loss expectations to 3.50% from 4.00% at closing on all
rated transactions issued in 2013. The loss expectation is based
on the credit quality of the initial pool, and our assumptions of
the composition of the additional receivables that will be added
to the pool during the initial 12-month revolving period.

Moody's has lowered its lifetime loss expectations for the 2013
transactions in recognition of the performance of the underlying
collateral during the revolving period and demonstrated
consistency with which Ally has been selecting collateral to be
added to the pool during the revolving period. Monthly collateral
additions during the revolving period thus far for each of the
2013 CARAT transactions have been made up of receivables with
credit characteristics that are indistinguishable from similar
origination vintages as that of the initial collateral pool.
Further, the loan additions in each month are not delinquent and
from the same vintages as the loans in the initial pool at
closing. Although there is no requirement in these transactions
for collateral of similar vintage to be added during the revolving
period, Moody's expect this pattern of consistent additions will
continue for each of the 2013 CARAT transactions, which mitigates
the risk of introducing newly originated collateral to the
existing 2013 transaction collateral pools.

The consistency of additions is evidenced in the credit
characteristics of the collateral pool for the 2013-1 transaction,
which has completed its 12-month revolving period and has begun
its scheduled amortization. The 2013-1 collateral pool at the
start of its amortization is similar to the initial collateral
pool, and Moody's expect the other 2013 transactions will
similarly be representative of their respective initial collateral
pools once each transaction reaches its scheduled amortization
period. For each of these CARAT transactions, once amortization
commences the credit enhancement is expected to build due to the
sequential pay structure of the transactions.

Differences in the amount of floating rate exposure result in a
ratings distinction between some subordinate classes of notes in
CARAT 2013-3 and CARAT 2013-4. The credit enhancement available
for the respective classes in the CARAT 2013-3 and CARAT 2013-4
transactions is identical, and Moody's expect the collateral
performance of each transaction to experience a lifetime
cumulative net loss of 3.50%. However the entire Class A-1 note
for the CARAT 2013-4 transaction pays a floating rate coupon that
is pegged to 1-month LIBOR and un-hedged. By comparison, the CARAT
2013-3 transaction has roughly one-third of the Class A-1 notes
paying a fixed rate coupon, and the remaining two-thirds of that
tranche paying an un-hedged floating rate coupon based on LIBOR.
This difference in floating rate exposure introduces more risk to
the subordinate notes of CARAT 2013-4, and as a result Moody's are
affirming the ratings on the Class B and Class C notes for CARAT
2013-4, and upgrading the Class B and Class C notes for CARAT
2013-3.

Below are key performance metrics (as of the January 2014
distribution date) and credit assumptions for each affected
transaction. Credit assumptions include Moody's expected lifetime
CNL expected range/loss which is expressed as a percentage of the
original pool balance plus all collateral additions to date;
Moody's lifetime remaining CNL expectation and Moody's Aaa (sf)
level which are expressed as a percentage of the current pool
balance. The Aaa level is the level of credit enhancement that
would be consistent with a Aaa (sf) rating for the given asset
pool. Performance metrics include pool factor which is the ratio
of the current collateral balance to the original collateral
balance at closing; total credit enhancement, (expressed as a
percentage of the outstanding collateral pool balance) which
typically consists of subordination, overcollateralization,
reserve fund and excess Spread per annum

Issuer: Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 2013-1

Lifetime CNL expectation - 3.50%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation - 4.01%

Aaa (sf) level - 18.00%

Pool factor - 69.42%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A-1 20.5%, Class A-2 20.5%,
Class A-3 20.5%, Class A-4 20.5%, Class B 16.25%, Class C 10%,
Class D 5.25%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 5.0%

Issuer - Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 2013-2

Lifetime CNL expectation - 3.50%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation - 3.80%

Aaa (sf) level - 20.00%

Pool factor - 83.18%

Total Hard credit enhancement -- Class A-1 20.5%, Class A-2 20.5%,
Class A-3 20.5%, Class A-4 20.5%, Class B 16.25%, Class C 11.75%,
Class D 7.75%, Class E 4.25%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 4.3%

Issuer: Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 2013-3

Lifetime CNL expectation - 3.50%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation - 3.75%

Aaa (sf) level - 20.00%

Pool factor - 88.63%

Total Hard credit enhancement -- Class A-1a 20.5%, Class A-1b
20.5%, Class A-2 20.5%, Class A-3 20.5%, Class A-4 20.5%, Class B
15.75%, Class C 11.25%, Class D 7.25%, Class E 3.75%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 4.2%

Issuer: Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 2013-4

Lifetime CNL expectation - 3.50%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation - 3.70%

Aaa (sf) level - 20.00%

Pool factor - 94.44%

Total Hard credit enhancement -- Class A-1 20.5%, Class A-2 20.5%,
Class A-3 20.5%, Class A-4 20.5%, Class B 15.75%, Class C 11.25%,
Class D 7.25%, Class E 3.75%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 4.5%

Principal Methodology

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Auto Loan-Backed ABS" published in May 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

Up

Levels of credit protection that are higher than necessary to
protect investors against current expectations of loss could drive
the ratings up. Losses could decline from Moody's original
expectations as a result of a lower number of obligor defaults or
appreciation in the value of the vehicles securing an obligor's
promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends greatly
on the US job market and the market for used vehicles. Other
reasons for better-than-expected performance include changes to
servicing practices that enhance collections or refinancing
opportunities that result in prepayments.

Down

Levels of credit protection that are insufficient to protect
investors against current expectations of loss could drive the
ratings down. Losses could rise above Moody's original
expectations as a result of a higher number of obligor defaults or
deterioration in the value of the vehicles securing an obligor's
promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends greatly
on the US job market and the market for used vehicles. Other
reasons for worse-than-expected performance include poor
servicing, error on the part of transaction parties, inadequate
transaction governance and fraud.


CAPTEC GRANTOR: Moody's Lowers Rating on Cl. A-10 Notes to 'Ca'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's has upgraded the Class B notes to B2(sf) and downgraded
the Class A-IO notes to Ca(sf) of Captec Grantor Trust 2000-1. The
deal was sponsored by Captec Financial Group. The securities are
backed by franchise loans made to fast-food and casual dining
restaurants. The complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Captec Grantor Trusts 2000-1

Class B, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Apr 25, 2012 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Class A-IO, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 25, 2012
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The upgrade results from high levels of credit enhancement
available to protect noteholders from potential future collateral
writedowns. As the deal amortizes, the sequential payment
waterfall allows for subordination as a percentage of the pool
balance to increase over time. The rating also reflects the
underlying concentrations and default risks in the transaction as
well as our view on future performance of the collateral
properties.

As of the February 17th payment date, the Class B notes had 83%
total credit enhancement from 20 loans. Some of these loans are in
the name of the same obligor resulting in meaningful concentration
risk. In addition, Captec 2000-1 has exposure to single franchise
concepts such as Taco Bell and Applebee's which is another aspect
of concentrated credit risk for this deal. The high level of
credit enhancement available to noteholders, however, will serve
as a mitigant to the downside risk of brand deterioration risk.
The downgrades of the interest only (IO) securities to Ca (sf) is
consistent with our approach of maintaining the rating consistent
with the pool's expected loss.

Methodology

In order to estimate losses on the collateral pool, Moody's
calculates the expected loss given default of the obligors that
have become nonperforming, and also estimates future losses on the
performing portion of the pool, all as a percentage of the
outstanding pool. In evaluating the nonperforming loans, key
factors include collateral valuations and expected recovery rates,
volatility around those recovery rates, historical obligor
performance, time until recovery or liquidation on defaulted
obligors, concessions due to restructuring which may negatively
impact the overall cash flow of the trust and/or the collateral,
and future industry expectations. Net losses are then evaluated
against the available credit enhancement provided by
overcollateralization, subordination, and excess spread.
Sufficiency of coverage is considered in light of remaining
borrower concentrations and concepts, remaining bond maturities,
and economic outlook.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

An increase or decrease in delinquencies or losses that differs
from recent performance


CARLYLE ARNAGE: Moody's Hikes $20MM Cl. B-2L Notes Rating to Ba1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Carlyle Arnage CLO, Ltd.:

$26,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due August 2021,
Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on August 5, 2013 Upgraded to Aa1
(sf)

$21,000,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due August 2021,
Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on August 5, 2013 Upgraded to Baa1
(sf)

$20,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due August 2021
(current outstanding balance of $18,906,095), Upgraded to Ba1
(sf); previously on August 5, 2013 Confirmed at Ba2 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

$300,000,000 Class A-1LA Floating Rate Notes Due August 2021
(current outstanding balance of $52,627,718), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on August 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$120,200,000 Class A-1L Floating Rate Notes Due August 2021
(current outstanding balance of $33,964,071), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on August 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$44,800,000 Class A-1LB Floating Rate Notes Due August 2021,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$30,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due August 2021,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Carlyle Arnage CLO, Ltd., issued in December 2007, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in February 2012.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since the last rating action in August
2013. The Class A-1 notes have been paid down by approximately 33%
or $65 million since the last rating action. Based on the
trustee's January 2014 report, the over-collateralization (OC)
ratios for the Senior Class A, Class A, Class B-1L, and Class B-2L
notes are reported at 155.4%, 133.8%, 120.4%, and 110.3%, versus
July 2013 levels of 140.0%, 125.5%, 115.9%, and 108.4%,
respectively. Moody's also notes that the principal balance of
defaulted securities and securities rated Ca have decreased to
$1.1 million from $16 million as of the last rating action. A
majority of the these defaulted securities and Ca-rated securities
were sold by the manager, and the proceeds were used to redeem the
senior notes.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
November 2013.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will continue and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed defaulted recoveries
assuming the lower of the market price and the recovery rate in
order to account for potential volatility in market prices.
Realization of higher than assumed recoveries would positively
impact the CLO.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2062)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LA: 0

Class A-1LB: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: +2

Class B-2L: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3093)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LA: 0

Class A-1LB: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: -1

Class B-1L: -2

Class B-2L: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in November 2013.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $250.2 million, defaulted
par of $1.1 million, a weighted average default probability of
17.17% (implying a WARF of 2578), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 51.87%, a diversity score of 41 and a weighted
average spread of 3.14%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


CD 2007-CD4: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 12 Classes of Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 24 classes
in CD 2007-CD4 Commercial Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2007-CD4 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. A-2B, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. A-MFL, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-MFX, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded to
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. N, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. O, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. XC, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded to
B1 (sf)

Cl. XP, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded to
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. XW, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded to
B1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on classes A-1A through A-MFX were affirmed because
the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value
(LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)
and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within
acceptable ranges. The ratings on classes A-J through O were
affirmed because the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected
loss.

The ratings on the three IO classes were affirmed based on the
credit performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF)
of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 19.5% of
the current balance, compared to 17.9% at Moody's last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published
September 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 48 compared to 52 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the February 13, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate pooled certificate balance has decreased by 24% to $4.99
billion from $6.60 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 321 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 6% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 39%
of the pool. Six loans, constituting less than 1% of the pool,
have defeased and are secured by US government securities.

Seventy loans, constituting 12% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Thirty-one loans have been liquidated at a loss from the pool,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $113 million (for an
average loss severity of 56%). Thirty-eight loans, constituting
23% of the pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest
specially serviced exposure is the Citadel Mall and Northwest
Arkansas Mall Portfolio Loan ($262 million -- 5.2% of the pool),
which is secured by two malls totaling 1,043,000 square feet (SF)
located in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The loans transferred to special servicing in October 2009 and
became real estate owned (REO) in September 2011. Both malls are
anchored by Dillard's, JC Penny and Sears. The Northwest Arkansas
Mall was 84% leased to permanent tenants as of December 2013,
while the Citadel Mall was 75% leased to permanent tenants.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Riverton
Apartments Loan ($225 million -- 4.5% of the pool), which is
secured by a 1,228-unit Class B, rent stabilized multifamily
property located in Harlem, New York. The loan transferred into
special servicing in August 2008 and has been REO since March
2010.

The third largest specially serviced loan is the Westin Lake Las
Vegas Loan ($117 million -- 2.3% of the pool), which is secured by
a 493-unit hotel located in Lake Las Vegas, Nevada. Lake Las Vegas
is approximately 20 miles east of the strip in Henderson, Nevada.
The hotel was converted to a Westin in March 2012. The property
became REO in May 2012.

The remaining 35 specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $728 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (62% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 30 poorly
performing loans, constituting 5% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $90 million (a 36% expected loss based on a
60% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 94% of the
pool and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 82% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 107% compared to
104% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
defeased loans, specially serviced loans and troubled loans.
Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of
10.5% to the most recently available net operating income (NOI).
Moody's value reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of
9.3%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.41X and 0.99X,
respectively, compared to 1.46X and 1.01X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three loans represent 15% of the pool. The largest conduit
loan is the Mall of America Loan ($306 million -- 6.1% of the
pool), which represents a pari passu interest in a $755 million
loan. The loan is secured by a 2.8 million SF regional
mall/entertainment center located in Bloomington, Minnesota. The
mall is anchored by Macy's, Nordstrom, and Sears, as well as a
variety of entertainment venues. The property was 86% leased as of
June 2013. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 85% and 0.98X,
respectively, compared to 88% and 0.96X at last review.

The second largest loan is the 200 Liberty Street Loan ($257
million -- 4.8% of the pool), which represents the pooled portion
of a $297.5 million first mortgage loan. The junior portion of the
loan is held within the trust and secures the non-pooled, or rake,
Classes WFC-1, WFC-2, WFC-3 and WFC-X. The loan is secured by a
1.6 million SF office building located in Lower Manhattan. The
property was 100% leased as of September 2013, the same at last
review. The loan sponsor is Brookfield Financial Properties, LP.
The collateral is part of Brookfield Place, which was renamed from
World Financial Center. The loan is interest only for its entire
ten-year term. Moody's A-Note LTV and stressed DSCR are 82% and
1.09X, respectively, compared to 84% and 1.06X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Four Seasons Resort Maui A-Note Loan
($206 million -- 4.1% of the pool), which represents a pari passu
interest in a $425 million loan. The loan is secured by 380 room
luxury resort located along the shoreline of southeastern Maui,
Hawaii. The loan was modified in June 2011 with a $10 million
equity infusion from the borrower, a five year loan extension and
a note bifurcation into a $350 million A note and a $75 million B
note. Property performance continues to improve due to strong
revenue per available room (RevPAR) growth. Moody's A-Note LTV and
stressed DSCR are 126% and 0.88X, respectively, compared to 138%
and 0.80X at last review.


CIFC FUNDING 2013-III: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on CIFC
Funding 2013-III Ltd./CIFC Funding 2013-III LLC's $369.00 million
fixed- and floating-rate notes following the transaction's
effective date as of Nov. 5, 2013.

Most U.S. cash flow collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) close
before purchasing the full amount of their targeted level of
portfolio collateral.  On the closing date, the collateral manager
typically covenants to purchase the remaining collateral within
the guidelines specified in the transaction documents to reach the
target level of portfolio collateral.  Typically, the CLO
transaction documents specify a date by which the targeted level
of portfolio collateral must be reached.  The "effective date" for
a CLO transaction is usually the earlier of the date on which the
transaction acquires the target level of portfolio collateral, or
the date defined in the transaction documents.  Most transaction
documents contain provisions directing the trustee to request the
rating agencies that have issued ratings upon closing to affirm
the ratings issued on the closing date after reviewing the
effective date portfolio (typically referred to as an "effective
date rating affirmation").

An effective date rating affirmation reflects S&P's opinion that
the portfolio collateral purchased by the issuer, as reported to
S&P by the trustee and collateral manager, in combination with the
transaction's structure, provides sufficient credit support to
maintain the ratings that S&P assigned on the transaction's
closing date.  The effective date reports provide a summary of
certain information that S&P used in its analysis and the results
of its review based on the information presented to S&P.

"We believe the transaction may see some benefit from allowing a
window of time after the closing date for the collateral manager
to acquire the remaining assets for a CLO transaction.  This
window of time is typically referred to as a "ramp-up period."
Because some CLO transactions may acquire most of their assets
from the new issue leveraged loan market, the ramp-up period may
give collateral managers the flexibility to acquire a more diverse
portfolio of assets," S&P added.

For a CLO that has not purchased its full target level of
portfolio collateral by the closing date, S&P's ratings on the
closing date and prior to its effective date review are generally
based on the application of its criteria to a combination of
purchased collateral, collateral committed to be purchased, and
the indicative portfolio of assets provided to S&P by the
collateral manager, and may also reflect its assumptions about the
transaction's investment guidelines.  This is because not all
assets in the portfolio have been purchased.

"When we receive a request to issue an effective date rating
affirmation, we perform quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the transaction in accordance with our criteria to assess whether
the initial ratings remain consistent with the credit enhancement
based on the effective date collateral portfolio.  Our analysis
relies on the use of CDO Evaluator to estimate a scenario default
rate at each rating level based on the effective date portfolio,
full cash flow modeling to determine the appropriate percentile
break-even default rate at each rating level, the application of
our supplemental tests, and the analytical judgment of a rating
committee," S&P noted.

"In our published effective date report, we discuss our analysis
of the information provided by the transaction's trustee and
collateral manager in support of their request for effective date
rating affirmation.  In most instances, we intend to publish an
effective date report each time we issue an effective date rating
affirmation on a publicly rated U.S. cash flow CLO," S&P said.

On an ongoing basis after S&P issues an effective date rating
affirmation, it will periodically review whether, in its view, the
current ratings on the notes remain consistent with the credit
quality of the assets, the credit enhancement available to support
the notes, and other factors, and take rating actions as it deems
necessary.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

CIFC Funding 2013-III Ltd./CIFC Funding 2013-III LLC

Class                      Rating                       Amount
                                                       (mil. $)
A-1A                       AAA (sf)                     119.00
A-1B                       AAA (sf)                     125.00
A-2A                       AA (sf)                       21.00
A-2B                       AA (sf)                       33.00
B (deferrable)             A (sf)                        30.00
C (deferrable)             BBB (sf)                      23.00
D (deferrable)             BB (sf)                       18.00


CITIGROUP 2004-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 4 Cert. Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of three
classes and affirmed the ratings of twelve classes in Citigroup
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2004-C1, Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2004-C1 as follows:

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aa1 (sf)

Cl. D, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
A1 (sf)

Cl. E, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to
B2 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. N, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. P, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on three investment grade P&I classes were affirmed
because the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-
value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within
acceptable ranges.

The ratings on eight below investment grade P&I classes were
affirmed because the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected
loss.

The rating on the IO class was affirmed based on the credit
performance of the referenced classes and is consistent with
Moody's expectations.

The ratings on three investment grade P&I classes were upgraded
based primarily on an increase in credit support resulting from
loan paydowns and amortization as well as Moody's expectation of
additional increases in credit support resulting from the payoff
of loans approaching maturity that are well positioned for
refinance. . The deal has paid down 40% since Moody's last review.
Nintey percent by deal balance comes due in the next six months.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 4.4% of the
current balance compared to 5.2% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.7% of the
original pooled balance compared to 4.5% at the last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in September
2000, and "Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single
Borrower Transactions" published in July 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 13, compared to 23 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the January 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 59% to $483.9
million from $1.18 billion at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by 42 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 16% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) representing 54% of the pool. Four loans reprsenting
17% of the pool have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

Eighteen loans, representing 40% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans which meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of our
ongoing monitoring of a transaction, Moody's reviews the watchlist
to assess which loans have material issues that could impact
performance.

Twelve loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $22.2 million (28% loss severity on
average). Five loans, representing 5% of the pool, are in special
servicing. The largest specially serviced loan is the Airport
Executive Towers I & II Loan ($11.8 million -- 2.4% of the pool),
which is secured by two class B office buildings totaling 164,318
square feet (SF) in Miami, Florida. The property was 62% leased as
of September 2013. A June 2013 appraisal valued the property at
$9.3 million. The servicer is in discussions with the borrower and
has recognized a $4.4 million appraisal reduction for this loan.

The remaining four specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $10.8 million
loss for the specially serviced loans (43% expected loss on
average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for two poorly-
performing loans representing 2.7% of the pool and has estimated
an aggregate $2.6 million loss (20% expected loss based on a 50%
probability of default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full-year 2012 operating results for 100% of the
pool and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 97%.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 78% compared to 85% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a
weighted average haircut of 14% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.57X and 1.38X,
respectively, compared to 1.42X and 1.25X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's net cash flow (NCF) and
the loan's actual debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on
Moody's NCF and a 9.25% stressed rate applied to the loan balance.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 33% of the pool
balance. The largest loan is the Yorktown Center Loan ($78.4
million -- 16.2% of the pool), which is secured by the borrower's
interest in a 1.5 SF regional mall located west of Chicago in
Lombard, Illinois. The collateral for this loan includes 620,000
SF of in line space, several outparcel buildings and an 84,000 SF
strip shopping center known as the Shops at Yorktown. The property
was 88% leased as of June 2013, the same as at last review.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 81% and 1.20X, respectively,
compared to 93% and 1.05X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Lake Shore Place Loan ($49.6
million -- 10.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 489,066 SF
office building located in Chicago, Illinois. The property was 99%
leased as of September 2013, compared to 94% at last review.
Performance has been stable. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 71%
and 1.45X, respectively, compared to 72% and 1.42X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Crossroads Center and Auburn Mile
Loan ($29.9 million -- 6.2% of the pool), which are two cross-
collateralized and cross-defaulted loans. The loans are secured by
the Crossroads Center power center and the Auburn Mile Shopping
Center power center, which are located in the Toledo and Detroit
MSAs, respectively. As of September 2013, Crossroads Center was
93% leased and Auburn Mile Shopping Center was 100% leased.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 97% and 1.00X, respectively.


CITIGROUP 2014-A: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class B3 Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2014-A's $374.3 million
mortgage-backed notes series 2014-A.

The note issuance is a residential mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by residential mortgage loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Feb. 19,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The loan's characteristics that are more risky than its
      archetypical prime pool, from a credit perspective;

   -- The pool's geographic diversity compared to similar
      transactions; and

   -- The credit enhancement provided, as well as the associated
      structural deal mechanics.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2014-A

Class       Rating                  Amount         Interest
                                   (mil. $)       rate (%)(i)
A           AA (sf)                347.401          4.00000
A-IO        AA (sf)                   (ii)            (iii)
B1          A (sf)                   9.661          5.43877
B2          BBB (sf)                 6.440          5.43877
B3          BB (sf)                  4.357          5.43877
B4          B (sf)                   6.441          5.43877
B5          NR                       4.546          5.43877

  (i) The notes are subject to a net WAC cap.
(ii) The notional amount for class A-IO will equal the aggregate
      class A outstanding balance.
(iii) Equal to the excess, if any, of the net WAC that's higher
     than 4.00%.
  IO--Interest-only.
  NR--Not rated.
  WAC--Weighted average coupon.


COMM 2012-LC4: Moody's Affirms 'B2' Rating on Class F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings of 12 classes
in COMM 2012-LC4 Mortgage Trust as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the P&I classes were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges.

The ratings on the IO classes were affirmed based on the credit
performance of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.3% of the
current balance compared to 2.2% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.2% of the
original pooled balance, the same as at Moody's last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in
April 2005.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 23 compared to 22 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the February 12, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 2% to $921 million
from $941 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 43 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 10% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 60% of
the pool. Two loans, constituting 9% of the pool, have investment-
grade credit assessments.

Four loans, constituting 3% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Moody's did not identify any troubled loans and there are
currently no loans in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 100% of the
pool and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 84% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 90% compared to
93% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 12% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.8%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.53X and 1.20X,
respectively, compared to 1.48X and 1.16X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The largest loan with a credit assessment is the Union Square
Retail Loan ($75.0 million -- 7.7% of the pool), which is secured
by 236,000 square feet (SF) of a mixed use building located in
Union Square in New York, New York. The property is 100% leased to
seven tenants, the same as at securitization. The largest tenant
is Regal Cinemas which leases 50% of the property's net rentable
area (NRA). Performance has remained stable. Moody's credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa3 and 1.61X, respectively, the
same as at last review.

The second largest loan with a credit assessment is the Johnstown
Galleria -- Ground Lease Loan ($13.5 million -- 1.4% of the pool),
which is secured by the fee interest in the land underlying the
Johnstown Galleria, a 712,000 SF regional mall located in
Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Performance has remained stable. Moody's
credit assessment and stressed DSCR are Aaa and 1.12X,
respectively, the same as at last review.

The top three conduit loans represent 21% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Square One Mall Loan ($97.2 million -- 10.0%
of the pool), which is secured by 541,000 SF of NRA contained
within a 929,000 SF super regional mall in Saugus, Massachusetts.
The property is anchored by Macy's (non-collateral), Sears (non-
collateral), Dick's, and TJ Maxx. As of September 2013, the
property was 89% leased compared to 88% at last review. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 73% and 1.36X, respectively, compared to
77% and 1.30X at securitization.

The second largest loan is the Puerto Rico Retail Portfolio Loan
($56.4 million -- 5.8% of the pool), which is secured by 555,000
SF contained within four anchored retail properties located within
various towns of Puerto Rico. As of September 2013, the portfolio
was 92% leased compared to 90% at last review. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 89% and 1.16X, respectively, compared to 91% and
1.13X at securitization.

The third largest loan is the Hartman Portfolio Loan ($55.1
million -- 5.6% of the pool), which is secured by 12 properties of
varying use located in Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, Texas.
Nine properties are Class B office buildings, two properties are
retail properties and one property is an industrial property.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 103% and 1.02X, respectively,
the same as at last review.


COMM 2014-TWC: DBRS Finalizes (P)BB Rating on Class E Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS has finalized the provisional ratings on the following
classes of COMM 2014-TWC Mortgage Trust.  The trends are Stable.

-- Class A at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-CP at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-EXT at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (low) (sf)
-- Class C at A (low) (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class E at BB (low) (sf)
-- Class F at B (sf)

The collateral for the transaction consists of the fee interest in
two office condominium units totaling 1.1 million sf within a
larger 2.86 million sf mixed-use complex.  The collateral is
located within both of the towers of the larger complex, with 19
floors in the South Tower and six floors in the North Tower.  It
is currently 100% occupied by Time Warner Realty Inc. (Time Warner
Realty) and Time Warner Cable.  Time Warner Realty, which occupies
87.6% of the NRA, will be leaving the subject property after its
lease expiry in 2019.  Time Warner Inc., which is rated investment
grade, guarantees the Time Warner Realty lease.  The loan served
as acquisition financing for the loan sponsors - The Related
Companies, L.P.; Government of Singapore Investment Corporation;
and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority - which acquired the subject
for $1.31 billion.  Including closing costs, there will be $669
million of cash equity behind the $675 million mortgage loan.

The subject is a trophy-quality Class A office property with an
excellent location at the southwest corner of Central Park.  As
the property was built only 11 years ago in 2003, it is in very
good condition and provides highly efficient, modern office space
for high-end users.  Unique attributes of the subject include
Central Park views, shops and restaurants within the complex
located in the Shops at Columbus Circle and extremely high ceiling
heights on several floors.  In addition, the three loan sponsors -
Related, GIC and ADIA - are all considered strong.  While all
three have significant financial resources, Related is an
experienced commercial real estate operator with deep knowledge of
the Manhattan market.

During the fully-extended six-year loan term, there is 100% tenant
rollover.  Moreover, the largest tenant (Time Warner, 87.6% of
NRA) is already known to be leaving at expiry (or shortly
thereafter) for Related's Hudson Yards development.  While Time
Warner Cable (12.4% of NRA) may ultimately stay at the property,
its intentions are currently unknown.  There is a significant
amount of cash equity ($669 million) behind the subject loan,
resulting in a loan-to-basis ratio of only 50.2%.  This high level
of cash investment heavily incentivizes the loan sponsors to carry
the property should there be any debt service shortfalls once both
tenants have expired (if the debt service reserve is depleted).
Although the loan structure allows for significant leakage of cash
flow to the borrower during the loan term, as the monthly cash
flow sweep test allows for $43.2 million annualized to be released
to the borrower, DBRS anticipates that there will be $67.1 million
swept into the leasing reserve.  DBRS estimates that re-leasing
the collateral to a 92.5% occupancy rate will cost $135.8 million.
After giving credit to a portion of the $67.1 million to be swept
prior to expiry of both leases, DBRS is deducting $78.8 million
from the value against which its sizing hurdles are applied.


CREDIT SUISSE 1997-C2: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on Cl. I Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on three
classes in Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1997-C2 as
follows:

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. I, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. A-X, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the P&I classes were affirmed because the ratings
are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO class was affirmed because the credit
performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of the
referenced classes are consistent with Moody's expectations.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 18.3% of
the current balance, compared to 18.5% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 4.0% at the last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Commercial Real Estate
Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating Credit Tenant Lease
Financings" published in November 2011, and "Moody's Approach to
Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions" published in
July 2000.

Moody's analysis incorporated a Credit Tenant Lease (CTL)
financing approach in assessing the credit quality of the pool's
CTL component. In this approach, the rating of the CTL component
is based primarily on the senior unsecured debt rating (or the
corporate family rating) of the tenants, usually investment-grade-
rated companies, leasing the real estate collateral supporting the
bonds. The tenants' credit rating is the key factor in determining
the probability of default on the underlying lease. The lease
generally is "bondable," which means it is an absolute net lease,
yielding a fixed rent paid to the trust through a lock box,
sufficient under all circumstances to pay in full all interest and
principal of the loan. The leased property should be owned by a
bankruptcy-remote special purpose borrower, which grants a first-
lien mortgage and assignment of rents to the securitization trust.
Moody's determines a dark value of the collateral, (which assumes
the property is vacant or dark), which the agency uses to
determine a recovery rate upon a loan's default. Moody's currently
uses a Gaussian copula model, incorporated in its public CDO
rating model CDOROMv2.8-8, to generate a portfolio loss
distribution to assess the ratings.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 6 compared to 7 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the January 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 96% to $57.8
million from $1.5 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 38 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 20% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 68% of
the pool. Eight loans, constituting 32% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities. There is a CTL
component that represents 59% of the pooled balance.

Three loans, constituting 6% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Twenty-two loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $41.5 million (for an average loss
severity of 22%). Two loans, constituting 13% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Union Camp Loan (for $4.1 million 7.2% of the pool),
which is secured by a 127,200 square foot (SF) industrial building
located in Valley View, Ohio. The property is under a bondable
triple net lease to Union Camp Corp. The loan was transferred to
special servicing in March 2009 for collateral risk non-monetary
default due to the borrower transferring a 100% interest in the
property without lender consent. The single credit tenant
continues to wire loan payments to the lockbox and the payments
are current as of the February 2014 payment.

The second specially serviced loan is the Southern Slope
Apartments Loan ($3.5 million -- 6.0% share of the pool), which is
secured by a 142 unit multifamily property located in Tulsa,
Oklahoma. The loan was transferred to special servicing in April
2011 and became REO in September 2013. The property was 80% leased
as of December 2013. The servicer indicated they intend to
stabilize the property. Moody's anticipates a loss on this loan.

Moody's received full year 2011 operating results for 74% of the
pool, and full year 2012 operating results for 95%. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 81%, compared to 66% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with credit
assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced and
troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted
average haircut of 12% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 10.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.06X and 1.34X,
respectively, compared to 1.38X and 1.66X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The only remaining conduit loan is the Brandywine Clear Point
Plaza Loan ($1.9 million -- 3.4% of the pool), which is secured by
a 124,000 SF anchored retail center located 100 miles west of New
Orleans in Gautier, Mississippi. The property was 70% leased as of
December 2013. The loan is currently on the watchlist due to
deferred maintenance issues and has passed its ARD date. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 81% and 1.34X, respectively, compared to
88% and 1.23X at last review.

The CTL component consists of 28 loans, constituting 58.5% of the
pool, secured by properties leased to six tenants. The largest
exposures is CVS/Caremark Corp. ($11.7 million -- 20.3 % of the
pool; senior unsecured rating: Baa1 -- stable outlook). Four of
the tenants have a Moody's rating. The bottom-dollar weighted
average rating factor (WARF) for this pool is 3555, compared to
2865 at the last review. WARF is a measure of the overall quality
of a pool of diverse credits. The bottom-dollar WARF is a measure
of default probability.


EMAC OWNER: Moody's Lowers Ratings on 2 Note Classes to Caa3
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's has downgraded the Class A notes to Caa3 (sf) of EMAC
Owner Trust 2000-1. The deal was sponsored by Enterprise Mortgage
Acceptance Company, LLC. The securities are backed by loans to gas
and convenience store operators. The complete rating actions are
as follows

Issuer: EMAC Owner Trust 2000-1

Class A-1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 13, 2005
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Class A-2, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 13, 2005
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The downgrade of the securities is due to continued weak
performance of the pool. There is currently no available credit
enhancement from subordination, overcollateralization or cash
reserves and 40% of the loan pool is more than 90 days delinquent.
Subordinated certificates were completely written down, and the
Class A-1 and A-2 notes have recognized write-downs of 21% and
27%, respectively. The ratings reflect our view on future
performance of the collateral properties as well as risk from
significant concentrations in the deal. Eight loans comprise 61%
of the pool balance.

Methodology

In order to estimate losses on the collateral pool, Moody's
calculates the expected loss given default of the obligors that
have become nonperforming, and also estimates future losses on the
performing portion of the pool, all as a percentage of the
outstanding pool. In evaluating the nonperforming loans, key
factors include collateral valuations and expected recovery rates,
volatility around those recovery rates, historical obligor
performance, time until recovery or liquidation on defaulted
obligors, concessions due to restructuring which may negatively
impact the overall cash flow of the trust and/or the collateral,
and future industry expectations. Net losses are then evaluated
against the available credit enhancement provided by
overcollateralization, subordination, and excess spread.
Sufficiency of coverage is considered in light of remaining
borrower concentrations and concepts, remaining bond maturities,
and economic outlook.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

An increase or decrease in delinquencies or losses that differs
from recent performance


FIRST UNION-LEHMAN: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on Cl. IO Certs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on one
interest-only class in First Union-Lehman Brothers Commercial
Mortgage Trust II, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 1997-C2 as follows:

Cl. IO, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on the IO class was affirmed because the credit
performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of the
referenced classes are consistent with Moody's expectations.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 20.4% of
the current balance, compared to 8.3% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 3.2% at the last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in September
2000, "Commercial Real Estate Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating
Credit Tenant Lease Financings" published in November 2011, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.

Moody's analysis incorporated a Credit Tenant Lease (CTL)
financing approach in assessing the credit quality of the pool's
CTL component. In this approach, the rating of the CTL component
is based primarily on the senior unsecured debt rating (or the
corporate family rating) of the tenants, usually investment-grade-
rated companies, leasing the real estate collateral supporting the
bonds. The tenants' credit rating is the key factor in determining
the probability of default on the underlying lease. The lease
generally is "bondable," which means it is an absolute net lease,
yielding a fixed rent paid to the trust through a lock box,
sufficient under all circumstances to pay in full all interest and
principal of the loan. The leased property should be owned by a
bankruptcy-remote special purpose borrower, which grants a first-
lien mortgage and assignment of rents to the securitization trust.
Moody's determines a dark value of the collateral, (which assumes
the property is vacant or dark), which the agency uses to
determine a recovery rate upon a loan's default. Moody's currently
uses a Gaussian copula model, incorporated in its public CDO
rating model CDOROMv2.8-8, to generate a portfolio loss
distribution to assess the ratings.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 9, the same as at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the January 21, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 97% to $71.1
million from $2.2 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 45 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 24% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 40% of
the pool. One loan, constituting 20% of the pool, has defeased and
is secured by US government securities. There is a CTL component
representing 51% of the pool balace.

Six loans, constituting 6% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Thirty-one loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $64.8 million (for an average loss
severity of 46%). There are currently no loans in special
servicing.

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for one poorly
performing loan, constituting 1% of the pool.

Moody's received full year 2011 operating results for 85% of the
pool, and full year 2012 operating results for 96%. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 62%, the same as last review.
Moody's conduit component excludes loans with credit assessments,
defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced and troubled loans.
Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of
12% to the most recently available net operating income (NOI).
Moody's value reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of
10.1%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.16X and 2.15X,
respectively, compared to 1.19X and 2.00X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The CTL component consists of 32 loans, constituting 51% of the
pool, secured by properties leased to five tenants. The largest
exposures are Blue Cross Blue Shield ($16.8 million -- 23.6 % of
the pool) and Rite Aid ($12.2 million -- 17.1 % of the pool;
backed senior unsecured rating: Caa2 -- stable outlook). Three of
the tenants have a Moody's rating. The bottom-dollar weighted
average rating factor (WARF) for this pool is 4825, compared to
3156 at the last review. WARF is a measure of the overall quality
of a pool of diverse credits. The bottom-dollar WARF is a measure
of default probability.


G-FORCE CDO 2006-1: S&P Affirms 'CCC-' Ratings on 2 Note Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-2 and SSFL notes from G-Force CDO 2006-1 Ltd., a commercial real
estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction.
Concurrently, we affirmed our ratings on the class A-3 and JRFL
notes from the same transaction.

The rating actions reflect S&P's analysis of the transaction's
liability structure and the collateral's credit characteristics,
using its global CDOs of pooled structured finance assets
criteria.  The upgrades also reflect the transaction's
amortization, as well as the positive rating movements on the
underlying collateral ($81.0 million; 23.2%).

Of the 58 assets outstanding in the collateral, 19 have ratings or
credit opinions that Standard and Poor's deems to be defaulted
($89.1 million; 25.5%).  In S&P's analysis, it considered the
amount of defaulted assets held in the portfolio and their
expected recoveries.

According to the Jan. 27, 2014, trustee report, the transaction's
collateral totaled $349.0 million, while its liabilities,
including capitalized interest, totaled $662.3 million.  This is
down from $880.4 million at issuance.  Class A-2 has an
outstanding principal balance of $6.5 million, down from
$74.6 million at issuance.  Class SSFL has an outstanding
principal balance of $76.4 million, down from $203.0 million at
issuance.

The transaction's current asset pool includes 58 CMBS tranches
from 27 distinct transactions issued between 1997 and 2006
($349.0 million; 100.0%).  Collateral that has experienced
positive rating movement ($81.0 million; 23.2%) includes:

   -- CD 2005-CD1 Commercial Mortgage Trust (class AJ;
      $20.0 million; 5.7%);

   -- GS Mortgage Securities Corp. II series 2005-GG4 (class AJ;
      $20.0 million; 5.7%); and

   -- Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2003-PWR2
      (class H; $13.3 million; 3.8%).

The following two transactions have the highest exposure in
G-Force CDO 2006-1 Ltd.:

   -- Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2003-PWR2
      (classes H, J, K, L, M, N, and P; $ 41.4 million; 11.9%);
      and

   -- Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2004-HQ3 (classes L, M, N, O,
      P, Q, and S; $31.8 million; 9.1%).

S&P believes the ratings remain consistent with the credit
enhancement available to support them and reflect its analysis of
the transaction's liability structure and the underlying
collateral's credit characteristics.

RATINGS RAISED

G-Force CDO 2006-1 Ltd.
Collateralized debt obligations

         Rating          Rating
Class    To              From
A-2      AA+ (sf)        A-(sf)
SSFL     BBB+ (sf)       BB+ (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

G-Force CDO 2006-1 Ltd.
Collateralized debt obligations

            Rating
A-3         CCC- (sf)
JRFL        CCC- (sf)


GREENWICH CAPITAL: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Note Classes to C
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service downgraded the ratings of six classes
and affirmed six classes of Greenwich Capital Commercial Funding
Corp. Commercial Mortgage Trust, Series 2006-GG7 as follows:

Cl. A-1-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. B, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. C, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed
B1 (sf)

Cl. D, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013
Affirmed B3 (sf)

Cl. E, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013
Affirmed Caa1 (sf)

Cl. F, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. G, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed
Ca (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the P&I classes A-4, A-1A, A-M and AJ were affirmed
because the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-
value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within
acceptable ranges. The ratings on the P&I Class H was affirmed
because the rating is consistent with Moody's expected loss. The
rating on the IO class, Class X, was affirmed based on the credit
performance of the referenced classes.

The ratings on the P&I classes B through G were downgraded due to
realized and anticipated losses from specially serviced and
troubled loans that were higher than Moody's had previously
expected.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 5.8% of the
current balance, compared to 6.9% at Moody's last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was " Moody's
Approach to Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in
September 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 26 compared to 29 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the January 10, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 24% to $2.73
billion from $3.61 billion at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by 101 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 9% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 55%
of the pool. One loan, constituting 1% of the pool, has defeased
and is secured by U.S. Government securities.

Thirty-two loans, constituting 29% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines as part of the CRE Finance
Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of Moody's
ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
impact performance.

Twenty-eight loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting
in an aggregate realized loss of $249.0 million (for an average
loss severity of 42%). Eight loans, constituting 9% of the pool,
are currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Montehiedra Town Center loan ($120.0 million, 4.4% of
the pool), which is secured by 540,490 square foot regional mall
in San Juan (Rio Piedras), Puerto Rico. As of March 2013, the
property was 89% leased, essentially the same as at last review.
Although, the loan remains current the Borrower anticipates
significant declines in property performance given local market
conditions.

The remaining seven specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $74.6 million
loss for the specially serviced loans (32% expected loss on
average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 12 poorly
performing loans, constituting 6% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $28.6 million (a 18% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 98% of the
pool, and partial year 2013 operating results for 44% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 101% compared to 100% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a
weighted average haircut of 9% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.36X and 1.02X,
respectively compared to 1.46X and 1.04X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's net cash flow (NCF) and
the loan's actual debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on
Moody's NCF and a 9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan
balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 23% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Investcorp Retail Portfolio Loan ($248.4
million -- 9.1% of the pool), which is secured by 20 shopping
centers located in three Texas MSA's (Dallas, Houston and San
Antonio). Since securitization, nine properties have been released
from the loan collateral reducing the total net rentable area to
2.1 million square feet from 2.8 million square feet at
securitization. Proceeds from the released properties were used to
pay down the floating rate loan component of $64 million. Overall,
performance has been stable. The loan is interest only for the
entire term with the maturity in April 2016. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 114% and 0.9X, respectively, compared to 115%
and 0.89X at the last review.

The second largest conduit loan is the 55 Corporate Drive Loan
($190 million -- 7.0% of the pool), which is secured by three
office buildings totaling 669,704 square feet located in
Bridgewater, New Jersey. The property is 100% leased to Sanofi-
Aventis (Moody's senior unsecured debt rating -- A1; stable
outlook) through June 2026. The loan is interest only for the
entire term with the maturity in December 2015. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 129% and 0.73X, respectively, compared to 130%
and 0.73X at the last review.

The third largest conduit loan is the One New York Plaza Loan
($180.3 million -- 6.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 50%
pari-passu interest in a $360.5 million loan. The loan is secured
by a 2.4 million square foot Class A office property located in
Lower Manhattan. The property was 84% leased as of September 2013
compared to 82% at last review. The loan was negatively impacted
by Goldman Sachs vacating 559,000 square feet (23% of the NRA) at
its lease expiration in 2010. The loan's sponsor is Brookfield
Office Properties. Moody's analysis incorporates a positive
benefit for the quality of the asset and its location in
Manhattan's financial district. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
68% and 1.36X, respectively, compared to 69% and 1.34X at the last
review.


GS MORTGAGE 2005-GG4: Fitch Affirms D Rating on $19.2MM J Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of GS Mortgage Securities
Corporation II, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates,
series 2005-GG4 (GSMSC II 2005-GG4).

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations are due to the relatively stable performance of
the collateral pool since Fitch's last rating action.  Fitch
modeled losses of 11.9% of the remaining pool; expected losses on
the original pool balance total 10.7%, including $125.8 million
(3.1% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.
Fitch has designated 54 loans (34%) as Fitch Loans of Concern,
which includes 17 specially serviced assets (14.5%).

As of the February 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 36.1% to $2.55 billion from
$4 billion at issuance.  There are 23 defeased loans (19%).
Cumulative interest shortfalls totaling $22.3 million are
currently affecting classes F through P.

The three largest contributors to modeled losses remain the same
as the last rating action, the largest of which is the One HSBC
Center loan (2.9% of the pool).  The loan is secured by an 850,476
square foot (sf) office property located in Buffalo, NY.  The loan
was transferred to special servicing in November 2013 for imminent
default.  As of the February 2014 remittance report, the loan was
classified as greater than 90 days delinquent.

The property's two largest tenants, HSBC Bank USA (77% of the
property square footage) and Phillips Lytle (10% of the property
square footage), did not renew their leases which expired in
October and December 2013, respectively, as was expected at
Fitch's last rating action.  The two tenants have already vacated
the vast majority of their occupied spaces and are expected to
fully vacate by the end of first quarter of 2014 (1Q'14). This
would drop occupancy below 10%.

The special servicer indicated a receiver was put in place in
December 2013.  The receiver is in the process of collecting
information from the prior leasing and management team and is
preparing and developing new marketing materials to advertise the
property's vacancies.  Fitch expects lease-up time could be
lengthy given the limited leasing interest to date and a weak
submarket.  According to REIS and as of 4Q'13, the overall Buffalo
metro office market reported a vacancy of 14% and the submarket
reported a vacancy of 16.2%.  Fitch applied a dark value analysis
to estimate an expected recovery given the high property vacancy,
making assumptions for market rent declines, downtime between
leases, carrying costs, and re-tenanting costs.

The second largest contributor to modeled losses is the Wells
Fargo Center loan (7.8%), which is secured by a 1.21 million sf
office property located in Denver, CO.  Property occupancy has
continued to decline year-over-year due to multiple tenants
vacating at or prior to their scheduled lease expirations. As of
the September 2013 rent roll, the property was 83% occupied,
representing a drop from the 87% reported at year-end (YE) 2012,
88% at YE 2011, and 99% at YE 2010.

According to the September 2013 rent roll, approximately 12% of
the total property square footage rolls prior to the loan's April
2015 maturity date.  According to REIS and as of 4Q'13, the
Midtown Denver office submarket reported a vacancy of 15.6%.  New
leases have generally been signed at lower rents than expiring
leases.  The debt service coverage ratio, on a net operating
income basis, was 1.54x at YE 2012, gradually declining from the
1.59x, 1.62x, 1.77x, and 1.62x reported at YE 2011, YE 2010, YE
2009, and at issuance, respectively.

The third largest contributor to modeled losses is the specially-
serviced Temple Mall asset (1.3%).  The asset is a 559,309 sf
retail property located in Temple, TX.  The loan was transferred
to special servicing in September 2008 due to imminent default and
became real-estate owned in September 2011.  As of YE 2013, the
property was 82% occupied, which has gradually improved as the
expected opening of a new IMAX theatre in the spring of 2014 has
generated some positive leasing momentum.

Rating Sensitivities

The ratings of the 'AAA' classes are expected to remain stable due
to increasing credit enhancement and continued paydown.

The Negative Outlooks on classes A-J and B reflect property
performance concerns for several of the top 15 loans, with major
tenant vacancies and rollover risk, combined with secondary and
tertiary market exposure.  Fitch will also continue to monitor the
tenancy and leasing status of the One HSBC Center loan. Further,
the Negative Outlooks also reflect the maturity risk associated
with 95% of pool scheduled to mature in 2015.

Distressed classes (those rated below 'Bsf') may be subject to
further downgrades as additional losses are realized.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes as indicated:

-- $480.9 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1.12 billion class A-4A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $167.4 million class A-4B at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $111.8 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $300.1 million class A-J at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $65 million class B at 'Bsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $35 million class C at 'CCCsf'; RE 50%;
-- $75 million class D at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $40 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $55 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $45 million class G at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $40 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $19.2 million class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Class P is not rated by Fitch.  Classes A-1, A-1P, A-DP, A-2, A-3,
A-ABA, and A-ABB have paid in full.  The ratings on the interest-
only classes X-P and X-C were already previously withdrawn.


GS MORTGAGE 2014-NEW: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to GS Mortgage Securities Corp. Trust 2014-NEW's
$306.3 million commercial mortgage pass-through certificates
series 2014-NEW.

The note issuance is backed by one $306.3 million seven-year loan
secured by first-mortgage liens on the borrowers' fee interests in
25 independent-living facilities located in 17 U.S. states.  The
loan amortizes on a 30-year schedule.  The loan has an initial
fixed interest rate of 3.80%, and as of Jan. 6, 2019, the interest
rate steps up to 4.55%.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Feb. 19,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect our view of the collateral's
historical and projected performance, the sponsor's and master
tenant's experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's
terms, and the transaction's structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

GS Mortgage Securities Corp. Trust 2014-NEW

Class         Rating(i)            Amount ($)
A-1           AAA (sf)             38,149,000
A-2           AAA (sf)            126,056,000
X-A           AAA (sf)         164,205,000(i)
X-B           BB- (sf)         142,118,136(i)
B             AA- (sf)             36,491,000
C             A- (sf)              27,367,000
D             BBB- (sf)            33,571,000
E             BB- (sf)             44,689,136

(i) Notional balance.


GULF STREAM-COMPASS 2005-II: Moody's Ups D Notes Rating to Ba1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Gulf Stream-Compass CLO 2005-II, Ltd.:

$25,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2020, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on August 27, 2013
Confirmed at Ba2 (sf)

$10,000,000 Type II Composite Notes due 2020 (current Rated
Balance of $2,701,234), Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on August
27, 2013 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

$35,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Variable Funding Floating
Rate Notes due 2020 (current outstanding balance of $3,621,757),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 27, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$350,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2020 (current outstanding balance of $36,217,574), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on August 27, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$15,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2020,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 27, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$35,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2020, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 27, 2013
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

$5,000,000 Type I Composite Notes due 2020 (current Rated Balance
of $2,571,007), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 27, 2013
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Gulf Stream-Compass CLO 2005-II, Ltd., issued in January 2006, is
a collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in January 2012.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since the last rating action in August
2013. The Class A-1 and A-2 notes have been paid down by
approximately 42% or $29.0 million since August 2013. Based on the
trustee's January 2014 report, the over-collateralization (OC)
ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, and ClassD notes are reported
at 216.1%, 142.5%, and 114.6%, respectively, versus July 2013
levels of 167.7%, 128.9%, and 110.6%, respectively. The
overcollateralization ratios reported in the January 2014 trustee
report do not include the January payment distribution, when $12.9
million of principal proceeds were used to pay down the Class A-1
and Class A-2 Notes.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
November 2013.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will continue and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed defaulted recoveries
assuming the lower of the market price and the recovery rate in
order to account for potential volatility in market prices.
Realization of higher than assumed recoveries would positively
impact the CLO.

6) Long-dated assets: The presence of assets that mature after the
CLO's legal maturity date exposes the deal to liquidation risk on
those assets. This risk is borne first by investors with the
lowest priority in the capital structure. Moody's assumes that the
terminal value of an asset upon liquidation at maturity will be
equal to the lower of an assumed liquidation value (depending on
the extent to which the asset's maturity lags that of the
liabilities) or the asset's current market value.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (WARF = 2324)

Class A-1:0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: +2

Type I Composite Note: 0

Type II Composite Note: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (WARF = 3486)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -1

Class D: -1

Type I Composite Note: 0

Type II Composite Note: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in November 2013.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $128.8 million, defaulted
par of $4.3 million, a weighted average default probability of
17.78% (implying a WARF of 2905), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 51.06%, a diversity score of 37 and a weighted
average spread of 3.46%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


ING IM 2014-1: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating on $7MM Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
seven classes of notes to be issued by ING IM CLO 2014-1, Ltd.
(the "Issuer" or "ING 2014-1").

Moody's rating action is as follows:

  $256,000,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
  A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

  $23,000,000 Class A-2A Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
  A-2A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

  $30,000,000 Class A-2B Fixed Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class A-
  2B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

  $19,000,000 Class B Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026
  (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

  $25,000,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026
  (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

  $18,500,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026
  (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

  $7,000,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
  "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B2 (sf)

The Class A-1 Notes, the Class A-2A Notes, the Class A-2B Notes,
the Class B Notes, the Class C Notes, the Class D Notes and the
Class E Notes are referred to herein, collectively, as the "Rated
Notes."

Moody's issues provisional ratings in advance of the final sale of
financial instruments, but these ratings only represent Moody's
preliminary credit opinions. Upon a conclusive review of a
transaction and associated documentation, Moody's will endeavor to
assign definitive ratings. A definitive rating, if any, may differ
from a provisional rating.

Ratings Rationale

Moody's provisional ratings of the Rated Notes address the
expected losses posed to noteholders. The provisional ratings
reflect the risks due to defaults on the underlying portfolio of
assets, the transaction's legal structure, and the characteristics
of the underlying assets.

ING 2014-1 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans or eligible investments, and up to
7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans. The
underlying collateral pool is expected to be approximately 75%
ramped as of the closing date.

ING Alternative Asset Management LLC (the "Manager") will direct
the selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf
of the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's four year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, purchases are permitted using
principal proceeds from unscheduled principal payments and
proceeds from sales of credit risk obligations, and are subject to
certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue subordinated
notes. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage
tests which, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds
to pay down the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in November 2013.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case
assumptions:

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2575

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.75%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was an
important component in determining the ratings assigned to the
Rated Notes. This sensitivity analysis includes increased default
probability relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2575 to 2961)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2A Notes: -1

Class A-2B Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2575 to 3348)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2A Notes: -3

Class A-2B Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -2

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High.

Moody's V Scores provide a relative assessment of the quality of
available credit information and the potential variability around
the various inputs to a rating determination. The V Score ranks
transactions by the potential for significant rating changes owing
to uncertainty around the assumptions due to data quality,
historical performance, the level of disclosure, transaction
complexity, the modeling and the transaction governance that
underlie the ratings. V Scores apply to the entire transaction,
rather than individual tranches.


JP MORGAN 2006-RR1: Moody's Affirms Ca Rating on Cl. A-1 Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating on the following
certificate issued by JPMorgan-CIBC Commercial Mortgage-Backed
Securities Trust 2006-RR1 ("JPM 2006-RR1"):

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Apr 17, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has affirmed the ratings on the transaction because its
key transaction metrics are commensurate with existing ratings.
The affirmation is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO and
ReRemic) transactions.

JPM 2006-RR1 is a static cash Re-Remic transaction backed by a
portfolio of commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) (100.0%
of collateral pool balance). As of the trustee's January 23, 2014
report, the aggregate certificate balance of the transaction has
decreased to $238.3 million from $523.9 million at issuance, due
to full and partial realized losses applied to certain classes of
certificates. Additionally, the senior most outstanding class
received prepayments in the form of amortization and recoveries
from defaulted assets.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of the
expected loss in CRE CDO transactions: the weighted average rating
factor (WARF), the weighted average life (WAL), the weighted
average recovery rate (WARR), and Moody's asset correlation (MAC).
Moody's typically models these as actual parameters for static
deals and as covenants for managed deals.

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 6733,
compared to 7415 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: Aaa-Aa3 (5.1% compared to 2.6% at last
review), A1-A3 (6.1% compared to 4.0% at last review), Baa1-Baa3
(3.8% compared to 6.4% at last review), Ba1-Ba3 (7.1% compared to
5.5% at last review), B1-B3 (1.7% compared to 1.8% at last review)
and Caa1-C (76.3% compared to 79.8% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.6 years, compared to 3.6 years at last
review.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 5.5%, compared to 4.4% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 0.0%, compared to 0.0% at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in May 2012.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

The performance of the certificates is subject to uncertainty,
because it is sensitive to the performance of the underlying
portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and credit conditions
that are subject to change. The servicing decisions of the master
and special servicer and surveillance by the operating advisor
with respect to the collateral interests and oversight of the
transaction will also affect the performance of the rated
certificates.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the
rated certificates, although a change in one key parameter
assumption could be offset by a change in one or more of the other
key parameter assumptions. The rated certificates are particularly
sensitive to changes in the recovery rates of the underlying
collateral and credit assessments. However in the light of
performance indicators noted above, increasing the recovery rate
assumption from 5.5% to 15.5% would not result in any modeled
rating movement on the rated certificates.

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment given
the weak recovery and commercial real estate property markets.
Commercial real estate property values continue to improve
modestly, along with a rise in investment activity and
stabilization in core property type performance. Limited new
construction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.
However, sustained growth will not be possible until investment
increases steadily for a significant period, non-performing
properties are cleared from the pipeline and fears of a euro area
recession abate.


JP MORGAN 2012-C6: Moody's Affirms 'B2' Rating on Class H Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on fourteen
classes in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-C6 as
follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed A1
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the P&I classes were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges.

The ratings on the IO classes were affirmed based on the credit
performance of the referenced classes and are consistent with
Moody's expectations.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.8% of the
current balance compared to 2.4% at Moody's prior review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in
September 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 23, the same as at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the January 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 2% to $1.12 billion
from $1.13 billion at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by 49 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 11% of the pool, with the top ten loans representing 52% of
the pool.

Four loans, representing 8% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans which meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of our
ongoing monitoring of a transaction, Moody's reviews the watchlist
to assess which loans have material issues that could impact
performance.

No loans have been liquidated from the pool and no loans are in
special servicing.

Moody's received full-year 2012 operating results for 100% of the
pool and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 96%.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 93% compared to 98% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a
weighted average haircut of 10% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.63X and 1.15X,
respectively, compared to 1.54X and 1.07X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's net cash flow (NCF) and
the loan's actual debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on
Moody's NCF and a 9.25% stressed rate applied to the loan balance.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 28% of the pool
balance. The largest loan is the 200 Public Square Loan ($127.0
million -- 11.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 1.3 million
square foot (SF) Class A office tower located in downtown
Cleveland, Ohio. The property is on Public Square close to the RTA
Rapid Transit Terminal. As of September 2013, the property was 79%
leased compared to 81% at the last review. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 94% and 1.07X, respectively, compared to 100%
and 1.00X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Arbor Place Mall Loan ($119.2
million -- 10.7% of the pool), which is secured by 1.2 million
square foot (546,374 square feet are collateral) super regional
mall located in Douglasville, Georgia. Anchors include Dillard's,
Belk, Macy's, Sears, and JC Penney. As of September 2013, the
property was 98% leased compared to 99% at the last review.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 104% and 0.99X, respectively,
compared to 101% and 1.02X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Northwoods Mall Loan ($71.2 million
-- 6.4% of the pool), which is secured by 403,671 square feet of a
791,598 square foot regional mall located in North Charleston,
South Carolina. . JC Penney is the only anchor that is collateral.
Non-collateral anchors include Dillard's and Belk. As of September
2013, the property was 99% leased compared to 97% at the last
review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 97% and 1.09X,
respectively, compared to 103% and 1.02X at the last review.


KKR FINANCIAL 2007-A: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its rating on the class
B notes from KKR Financial CLO 2007-A Ltd., a U.S. collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) managed by KKR Financial Advisors.  At the
same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A, C, D, E, and F
notes.  In addition, S&P removed its ratings on the class B, C, D,
E, and F notes from CreditWatch, where it placed them with
positive implications on Nov. 14, 2013.

The upgrade reflects a $164.21 million principal paydown to the
class A notes since S&P's April 2013 rating actions.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the trustee report dated Jan. 3, 2014.

The defaulted collateral balance has increased since S&P's last
rating actions.  According to the January 2014 trustee report, the
transaction held $69.79 million in defaulted assets, up from no
defaulted assets noted in the February 2013 trustee report, which
S&P used for its last rating actions.

Post-reinvestment period principal amortization has resulted in
paydowns to the class A notes since our last rating action.
Consequently, the transaction's senior (A/B), C, D, and E
overcollateralization ratio tests have improved.

The transaction has exposure to long-dated assets (assets maturing
after the CLO's stated maturity).  According to the Jan. 3, 2014,
trustee report, the balance of collateral with a maturity date
after the transaction's stated maturity totaled $221.38 million,
accounting for 30.09% of the portfolio.  S&P's analysis considered
the potential market value and/or settlement-related risk arising
from a liquidation of the remaining securities on the
transaction's legal final maturity date.

The rating affirmations on the class C, D, E, and F notes were
driven by the largest obligor default test, a supplemental stress
test S&P introduced as part of its 2009 corporate criteria update.

Standard & Poor's will continue to review whether, in its view,
the ratings assigned to the notes remain consistent with the
credit enhancement available to support them and take rating
actions as it deems necessary.

CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND KEY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS COMPARISON

                    February 2014       February 2013
Class            Notional(mil. $)    Notional(mil. $)
A                          291.96              456.17
B                           30.00               30.00
C                           70.00               70.00
D                           57.00               57.00
E                           45.00               45.00
F                           17.00               17.00
                            Overcollateralization (%)
Senior (A/B)               203.73              171.32
Class C                    168.42              149.76
Class D                    147.59              135.84
Class E                    134.47              126.55

RATING AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

KKR Financial CLO 2007-A Ltd.
                        Rating
Class              To           From
A                  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
B                  AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C                  A+ (sf)      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D                  BBB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
E                  BBB- (sf)    BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
F                  BB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos


KODIAK CDO I: S&P Lowers Rating on Class B Notes to 'D'
-------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on the class
B notes from Kodiak CDO I Ltd., a U.S. collateralized debt
obligation transaction collateralized mostly by trust preferred
securities issued by mortgage REITs assets, to 'D (sf)' from
'CCC+ (sf)'.

S&P downgraded the class B non-deferrable notes after the
transaction declared an event of default when the class failed to
receive its full interest payment on the Feb. 7, 2014, payment
date.


LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2006-C1: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Cl. C Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its rating on the class
A-M commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from LB-UBS
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-C1, a U.S. commercial mortgage-
backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  Concurrently, S&P affirmed
its ratings on 10 other classes from the same transaction,
including the class X-CL interest-only (IO) certificates.

S&P's rating actions follow its analysis of the transaction,
primarily using its criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS
transactions.  S&P's analysis included a review of the credit
characteristics and performance of the remaining assets in the
pool, the transaction's structure, and the liquidity available to
the trust.

S&P upgraded the class A-M certificates to reflect its expectation
that the available credit enhancement for this class is above its
most recent estimate of the necessary credit enhancement required
for the current rating.

The affirmations on the 10 classes of principal and interest
certificates reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit
enhancement for these classes will be within its estimate of the
necessary credit enhancement required for the current ratings.
The affirmations also reflect S&P's analysis of the credit
characteristics and performance of the remaining assets, as well
as the liquidity support available to the classes.

The affirmation of our 'AAA (sf)' rating on the class X-CL IO
certificates reflects S&P's current criteria for rating IO
securities.

RATING RAISED

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-C1
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

                    Rating
Class          To           From                Credit
                                       enhancement (%)
A-M            AA- (sf)     A- (sf)              19.63

RATINGS AFFIRMED

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-C1
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

Class              Rating                       Credit
                                            enhancement (%)
A-3                AAA (sf)                      32.77
A-AB               AAA (sf)                      32.77
A-4                AAA (sf)                      32.77
A-J                BB (sf)                        7.79
B                  BB- (sf)                       6.97
C                  B+ (sf)                        5.49
D                  B (sf)                         4.18
E                  B- (sf)                        3.19
F                  CCC+ (sf)                      2.04
X-CL               AAA (sf)                        N/A

N/A-Not applicable.


LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2007-C7: S&P Cuts Ratings on 2 Notes to 'D'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-3, A-1A, and A-M commercial mortgage pass-through certificates
from LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C7, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  Concurrently, S&P
lowered its ratings on the class D and E certificates from the
same transaction to 'D (sf)'.  Furthermore, S&P affirmed its
ratings on six other classes of certificates from the same
transaction, including the 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class X-CL,
X-CP, and X-W interest-only (IO) certificates.

"Our rating actions follow our analysis of the transaction
primarily using our criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS
transactions.  Our analysis included a review of the credit
characteristics and performance of the remaining assets in the
pool, the transaction structure, and the liquidity available to
the trust," S&P said.

The raised ratings on the class A-3, A-1A, and A-M certificates
reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit enhancement
for these classes is above its most recent estimate of the
necessary credit enhancement required for the current ratings.
The upgrades also reflect S&P's views regarding the current and
future performance of the transaction'' collateral, as well as the
deleveraging of the trust balance, which included the higher-than-
expected recovery by the corrected Innkeepers Portfolio mortgage
loan's trust, of which the $327.9 million modified trust loan
balance (before disposition) was repaid in full.

S&P lowered its ratings on the class D and E certificates to 'D
(sf)' to reflect its expectation that the accumulated interest
shortfalls will remain outstanding for the foreseeable future.
The class D and E certificates currently have accumulated interest
shortfalls outstanding for five and nine consecutive months,
respectively.

As of the Jan. 17, 2014, trustee remittance report, the trust
experienced net monthly interest shortfalls totaling $60,982.  The
interest shortfalls were primarily related to an interest rate
reduction due to loan modifications of $257,386, interest not
advanced on non-recoverable assets of $150,168, appraisal
subordinate entitlement reduction (ASER) amounts of $54,510, and
special servicing fees of $36,978.  The monthly interest
shortfalls this period were offset by $340,456 in ASER recoveries.
The current monthly interest shortfalls affected all classes
subordinate to and including class D.

The affirmations on the principal and interest certificates
reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit enhancement
for these classes will be within our estimate of the necessary
credit enhancement required for the current ratings.  The affirmed
ratings also reflect S&P's analysis of the credit characteristics
and performance of the remaining assets, as well as liquidity
support available to the classes.

The 'AAA (sf)' rating affirmations on the class X-CL, X-CP, and X-
W IO certificates reflect S&P's current criteria for rating IO
securities.

RATINGS RAISED

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C7
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

                    Rating
Class          To           From                Credit
                                       enhancement (%)
A-3            AAA (sf)     AA- (sf)             35.86
A-1A           AAA (sf)     AA- (sf)             35.86
A-M            A- (sf)      BBB- (sf)            21.25


RATINGS LOWERED

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C7
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

                    Rating
Class          To           From                Credit
                                       enhancement (%)
D               D (sf)      CCC (sf)             3.91
E               D (sf)      CCC- (sf)            2.63

RATINGS AFFIRMED

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C7
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

Class              Rating                        Credit
                                        enhancement (%)
A-J                B (sf)                          8.84
B                  B- (sf)                         6.64
C                  CCC+ (sf)                       5.00
X-CL               AAA (sf)                         N/A
X-CP               AAA (sf)                         N/A
X-W                AAA (sf)                         N/A

N/A-Not applicable.


LIGHTPOINT CLO VII: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Cl. D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by LightPoint CLO VII, Ltd.:

U.S. $21,250,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Notes Due 2021, Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf); previously on July 29, 2011 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

U.S. $335,250,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes Due 2021 (current
balance of $327,486,61), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 29,
2011 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

U.S. $25,000,000 Class B Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on July 29, 2011 Upgraded to Baa1
(sf)

U.S. $18,000,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on July 29, 2011 Upgraded to Ba1
(sf)

U.S. $17,000,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on July 29, 2011 Upgraded to B1 (sf)

LightPoint CLO VII, Ltd., issued on May 15, 2007, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period will end in May 2014.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions reflect the benefit of the short period of
time remaining before the end of the deal's reinvestment period in
May 2014. In light of the reinvestment restrictions during the
amortization period, and therefore the limited ability of the
manager to effect significant changes to the current collateral
pool, Moody's analyzed the deal assuming a higher likelihood that
the collateral pool characteristics will maintain a positive
buffer relative to certain covenant requirements. In particular,
Moody's assumed that the deal will benefit from lower WARF
compared to the levels during the last rating review. Moody's
modeled a WARF of 2461 compared to 2647 during the last rating
review. Furthermore, the transaction's reported OC ratios have
been stable since January 2013.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
November 2013.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will commence and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (1969)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: +1

Class B: +2

Class C: +1

Class D: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2953)

Class A-1: -1

Class A-2: -3

Class B: -2

Class C: -1

Class D: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in November 2013.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $417.2 million, no defaulted
par, a weighted average default probability of 16.13% (implying a
WARF of 2461), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of
50.17%, a diversity score of 51 and a weighted average spread of
2.94%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2002-CANADA 8: Moody's Ups J Notes Rating to B1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of six classes
and affirmed three classes of Merrill Lynch Financial Assets Inc.
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-Canada
8 as follows:

Cl. D, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Cl. E, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Upgraded to
Aa2 (sf)

Cl. F, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Upgraded to
A1 (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Upgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. H, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. J, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. K, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. X-2, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The upgrades of the P&I classes were based primarily on an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization and overall stable pool performance. The deal has
paid down 17% since Moody's last review.

The affirmations of the P&I classes are because the transaction's
key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, Moody's
stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the transaction's
Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable ranges.

The ratings of the IO classes, Class X-1 and X-2, were affirmed
based on the credit performance (or the weighted average rating
factor or WARF) of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.3% of the
current balance compared to 1.6% at Moody's last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in September 2000
and "Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.

Description Of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 11 compared to 13 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the February 12, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 93% to $32 million
from $468 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 23 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 14% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 78% of
the pool. Three loans, constituting 8% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

Two loans, constituting 11% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

The transaction has experienced no realized losses to date. No
loans are currently in special servicing. Moody's has assumed a
high default probability for one poorly performing loan,
constituting 4% of the pool.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 80% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 31% compared to 40%
at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans
with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially
serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects
a weighted average haircut of 10% to the most recently available
net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted
average capitalization rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.87X and 4.44X,
respectively, compared to 1.64X and 3.43X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 39% of the pool balance. The
largest loan consists of the Prospectus numbers 39, 54 and 64
Loans ($4.5 million -- 13.9% of the pool), which are secured by
three cross collateralized and cross defaulted multifamily
properties in Toronto, Ontario totaling 216 units. The properties
were 100% leased as of December 2012, the same as at last review.
The loans are fully amortizing and are full recourse to the
sponsor, The Wynn Family Trust. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
36% and 2.84X, respectively, compared to 42% and 2.43X at last
full review.

The second largest loan consists of Prospectus numbers 29 and 44
Loans ($4.4 million -- 13.6% of the pool), which are secured by
two cross collateralized and cross defaulted industrial buildings
totaling 183,500 square feet (SF) located in Edmonton, Alberta.
The properties were 100% leased as of December 2012, the same as
at last review. The loans are fully amortizing and are full
recourse to the sponsor, Courier Edmonton North Portfolio Inc.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 34% and 2.93X, respectively,
compared to 39% and 2.61X at last full review.

The third largest loan is the Prospectus number 23 Loan ($3.6
million -- 1.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 73,550 SF
anchored retail/office strip center located in Ancaster, Ontario.
The property was 100% leased as of December 2012, the same as at
last review. The loan is fully amortizing. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 27% and 3.90X, respectively, compared to 31% and
3.46X at last full review.


MERRILL LYNCH 2004-BPC1: Fitch Affirms CC Rating on 2 Cert Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 16 classes of Merrill Lynch Mortgage
Trust commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2004-
BPC1.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations are warranted due to the relatively stable
performance of the pool since Fitch's last rating action. Fitch
modeled losses of 10.8% of the remaining pool; expected losses on
the original pool balance total 9.1%, including $52.7 million
(4.2% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.
Fitch has designated 20 loans (36.6%) as Fitch Loans of Concern,
which includes seven specially serviced assets (10.6%).

As of the January 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 55.1% to $558.5 million from
$1.24 billion at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, seven loans
(18.3% of the pool) are defeased. Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes F through Q.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the specially-
serviced Simon - Washington Square Mall (4.9% of the pool), which
is secured by a 448,762 sf portion of a regional mall totaling
922,614 sf located in Indianapolis, IN. The loan transferred to
the special servicer in December 2013 for imminent default; the
loan was previously modified and returned to the master servicer
in March 2011. The modification terms included a split into a $15
million A-Note and $12.5 million B-Note, an equity contribution
from the borrower to fund additional reserves, paydown of one
million of the outstanding balance, and a maturity extension to
July 1, 2016. The December 2012 NOI DSCR was 1.44x, as of the
March 2013 rent roll overall mall occupancy was 80% with
collateral occupancy of approximately 62%. Fitch expects losses on
the loan as current performance of the property does not support
the refinance of both the A and B notes.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-
serviced loan (3.1%), which is secured by a 276 unit multifamily
property built in 2002 located in Fort Myers, Florida. The loan
was transferred to the special servicer in November 2010 due to
payment default. The Borrower continues to remit rents per the
Sequestration of Rents Order in place. The servicer-reported
November 2013 trailing 12 month (TTM) DSCR is 1.02 (x) times and
the occupancy is 89%.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a 700 bed
student housing property located within two miles of Florida State
University in Tallahassee, Florida (3.8%). Occupancy as of the
September 2013 rent roll was 89% which increased from 87% at year-
end (YE) 2012. Although occupancy has increased slightly there has
been a decrease in base rent since 2011. The DSCR as of third
quarter 2013 was 0.91x and declined from 0.97x as of YE 2012.

Rating Sensitivity

Rating Outlooks on classes A-1A and A-5 remain stable due to
increasing credit enhancement and continued paydown. Rating
Outlooks on classes AJ and B have been revised to Stable from
Negative due to continued paydown and the likelihood of continued
paydown from the 2014 loan maturities. The Rating Outlook on Class
C will remain Negative and may be subject to downgrade if there is
further deterioration of the pool's cashflow performance and/or
decrease in the value of specially serviced loans. Additional
downgrades to the distressed classes (those rated below 'B') are
expected as losses are realized on specially serviced loans.

Fitch affirms the following classes and revises Rating Outlooks as
indicated:

-- $76.1 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $286.5 million class A-5 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $94.8 million class AJ at 'AAsf', Outlook to Stable from
    Negative;
-- $26.4 million class B at 'BBB-sf', Outlook to Stable from
    Negative;
-- $12.4 million class C at 'BBsf', Outlook Negative;
-- $18.6 million class D at 'CCCsf', RE 65%;
-- $9.3 million class E at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $15.5 million class F at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $10.9 million class G at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $7.9 million class H at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 certificates have paid in full.
Fitch does not rate the class Q certificates. Fitch previously
withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class XC and XP
certificates.


MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ14: S&P Affirms CCC- Ratings on 2 Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on three
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2007-IQ14, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  Concurrently, S&P
affirmed its ratings on 10 classes of certificates from the same
transaction, including the class X interest-only (IO)
certificates.

S&P's rating actions follow its analysis of the transaction,
primarily using its criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS
transactions.  S&P's analysis included a review of the credit
characteristics and performance of the remaining assets in the
pool, the transaction structure, and the liquidity available to
the trust.

S&P raised its ratings on the class A-4, A-5, and A-1A
certificates to 'A (sf)' from 'BBB+ (sf)' to reflect its expected
available credit enhancement for these classes, which is greater
than its most recent estimate of the necessary credit enhancement
for the respective rating levels.  The upgrades also reflect S&P's
views regarding the current and future performance of the
transaction's collateral as well as the significant deleveraging
of the trust balance.

The affirmations of the principal and interest-paying certificates
reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit enhancement
for these classes will be within its estimated necessary credit
enhancement required for the current outstanding ratings.  The
affirmations also reflect S&P's analysis of the credit
characteristics and performance of the remaining assets,
transaction-level changes, and liquidity support available to the
classes.  S&P also considered in its analysis the amount of assets
in the transaction that are either on the master servicers'
combined watchlist ($964.1 million, 30.0%) or with the special
servicer ($285.6 million, 8.9%).

S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class X IO certificates
based on its current criteria for rating IO securities.

RATINGS RAISED

Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2007-IQ14
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

            Rating
Class    To         From       Credit enhancement (%)
A-4      A (sf)     BBB+ (sf)                   34.81
A-5      A (sf)     BBB+ (sf)                   34.81
A-1A     A (sf)     BBB+ (sf)                   34.81

RATINGS AFFIRMED
Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2007-IQ14
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

Class          Rating          Credit enhancement (%)
A-2            AAA (sf)                         34.81
A-2FL          AAA (sf)                         34.81
A-2FX          AAA (sf)                         34.81
A-3            AAA (sf)                         34.81
A-AB           AAA (sf)                         34.81
A-M            B (sf)                           19.53
A-MFX          B (sf)                           19.53
A-J            CCC- (sf)                         7.31
A-JFX          CCC- (sf)                         7.31
X              AAA (sf)                           N/A

N/A-Not applicable.


MORGAN STANLEY 2012-C4: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. G Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings of 13 classes of
Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2012-C4 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the P&I classes were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges.

The ratings on the IO classes were affirmed because the credit
performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of the
referenced classes are consistent with Moody's expectations.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.7% of the
current balance, compared to 1.9% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is 2.6% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 1.9% at the last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in April 2005, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 19, the same as at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the January 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 2% to $1.08 billion
from $1.1 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 38 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 12% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 63% of
the pool. Three loans, constituting 22% of the pool, have
investment-grade credit assessments.

Four loans, constituting 6% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

One loan, Independence Place - Fort Campbell, constituting 1.9% of
the pool, is currently in special servicing. The loan is secured
by an multifamily property located in Clarksville, Tennessee near
the Fort Campbell Military base. The loan transferred to special
servicing in October 2013 after the borrower failed to remit the
September 2013 payment. The property was 82% occupied as of
November 2013. The special servicer indicated that a receiver was
appointed in January 2014.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2013 operating results for 84%. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 95%, the same as at Moody's last
review. Moody's conduit component excludes the specially serviced
loan. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average
haircut of 16% to the most recently available net operating income
(NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average capitalization
rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.45X and 1.12X,
respectively, compared to 1.45X and 1.10X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The largest loan with a credit assessment is the Ty Warner Hotels
& Resorts Portfolio ($97.9 million -- 9.1% of the pool), which is
secured by three luxury hotels and resorts. The sponsor also
incurred mezzanine debt of $80 million, secured by equity in the
Ty Warner Hotels & Resorts Portfolio. The portfolio includes the
Four Seasons Resort "The Biltmore" Santa Barbara located in Santa
Barbara, California; the San Ysidro Ranch located in Montecito,
California; and Las Ventanas al Paraiso located in San Jose del
Cabo, Mexico. The portfolio contains 319 guestrooms and Revenue
per Available Room (RevPAR) as of December 2013 has increased
nearly 8% from the prior year. Moody's credit assessment and
stressed DSCR are Baa1 and 2.03X respectively, compared to Baa1
and 1.92X at last review.

The second loan with a credit assessment is the 50 Central Park
South loan ($74.8 million -- 7.0% of the pool), which is secured
by a first priority fee mortgage encumbering the commercial
condominium unit consisting of floors 2-21 and portions of the
ground level, basement and sub-basement levels of the building as
well as the land upon which it is situated at 50 Central Park
South, New York, New York. The improvements on top of collateral
property currently operate as the Ritz-Carlton, Central Park, a
259 room luxury hotel. The collateral property is leased pursuant
to a net lease to MPE Hotel I (New York) LLC, an affiliate of the
50 Central Park South Borrower through October 31, 2075. Moody's
credit assessment is Aaa, the same as at last review.

The remaining loan with a credit assessment is the ELS Portfolio
($63.5 million -- 5.9% of the pool), which is secured by a seven
manufactured housing communities and one recreational vehicle park
located in Florida, Nevada, Virginia, Arizona, California and
Massachusetts. Each property provides a variety of amenities
including swimming pools and spas, clubhouses, exercise equipment
and laundry facilities. Four of the eight properties restrict
tenancy to occupants that are 55 years of age or older. After an
initial interest only period, the loan is now benefiting from
amortization. Moody's credit assessment and stressed DSCR are A2
and 1.68X, respectively, compared to A2 and 1.70X at last review.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 23% of the pool
balance. The largest loan is The Shoppes at Buckland Hills Loan
($126.7 million -- 11.8% of the pool), which is secured by 535,000
square feet (SF) of net rentable area contained within a 1.05
million SF regional mall located in Manchester, Connecticut. The
property was constructed in 1990 and renovated in 2003. Non-
collateral, tenant-owned anchors include Macy's, Sears, JC Penney,
and Macy's Men's & Home. The property is owned by General Growth
Properties. Property performance has declined since last review
due to a decrease in expense reimbursement and other income.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 108% and 0.93X, respectively,
compared to 106% and 0.94X at last review.

The second largest conduit loan is Capital City Mall Loan ($64.1
million -- 6.0% of the pool), which is secured by 489,000 SF of
net rentable area contained within a 609,000 SF regional mall
located in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. The property was constructed
in 1979 and renovated in 2005. The mall is anchored by J.C.
Penney, Sears and Macy's. Macy's is not part of the collateral.
The unit currently leased to Toys 'R' Us (9.4% of the collateral
space) is vacant and the tenant is expected to pay rent through
its scheduled lease expiration date in January 2015. The
collateral portion was 97% leased as of year-end 2012, where it's
historically been since 2007. The occupancy excluding the dark
space was 87%. The property net cash flow has declined due a
decrease in expense reimbursements. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 96% and 1.04X, respectively, compared to 95% and 1.06X at last
review.

The third largest loan conduit loan is 9 MetroTech Center Loan
($60.8 million -- 5.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 9-
story, Class A office building containing 317,000 SF and located
in Brooklyn, New York. It is one of seven Class A buildings
situated within the MetroTech Center, all of which are owned by
the Sponsor. The property was built in 1996 and has a two level
parking structure containing 137 parking spaces. The building is
100% leased to the Fire Department of New York "FDNY" and serves
as its main tracking terminal. Since the improvement is situated
on New York City owned land, the property is exempt from paying
real estate taxes. Instead, the property is obligated to make
payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT), under which the sponsor was
responsible for payments equivalent to real estate taxes on land
only during years 1 to 13 (measured from 1996 -2009). Subsequent
to this period, the PILOT payments began to phase in 10% of the
improvement's tax obligations per annum. The property will be
obligated to pay full taxes on both land and improvements by 2019.
Moody's accounted for the PILOT structure in its analysis. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 98% and 1.01X, respectively, compared to
100% and 1.00X at last review.


MORGAN STANLEY 2014-C14: DBRS Finalizes BB Rating on F Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS has finalized the provisional ratings on the following
classes of Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2014-C14, issued by Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Trust 2014-C14.  The trends are Stable.

-- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-SB at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-3 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-4 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-5 at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-A at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-B at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-C at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-S at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (sf)
-- Class PST at A (low) (sf)
-- Class C at A (low) (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class E at BB (high) (sf)
-- Class F at BB (sf)
-- Class G at B (high) (sf)

Classes X-B, X-C, D, E, F and G have been privately placed
pursuant to Rule 144A.

The Classes X-A, X-B and X-C balances are notional.  DBRS ratings
on interest-only certificates address the likelihood of receiving
interest based on the notional amount outstanding.  DBRS considers
the interest-only certificates' position within the transaction
payment waterfall when determining the appropriate rating.

Up to the full certificate balance of the Class A-S, Class B and
Class C certificates may be exchanged for Class PST certificates.
Class PST certificates may be exchanged for up to the full
certificate balance of the Class A-S, Class B and Class C
certificates.

The collateral consists of 58 fixed-rate loans secured by 75
commercial and multifamily properties.  The transaction has a
balance of $1,478,625,800.  The pool consists of relatively
moderate-leverage financing, with a DBRS weighted-average
refinance debt service coverage ratio of 1.15 times, based on a
weighted-average stressed refinance constant of 9.6%.  The DBRS
sample included 30 loans, representing 83.9% of the pool.  Of the
sampled loans, one loan in the top ten was given Excellent
property quality, five loans (three of which are in the top ten)
were given Above Average property quality and no loans were given
Below Average property quality.  DBRS considers the pool to be
concentrated based on loan size, with a concentration profile
equivalent to a pool of 23.5 equal-sized loans.  Additionally, two
loans (one of which is in the top ten), representing 6.9% of the
pool, were shadow-rated investment grade.

Eleven hotel properties secure 20.8% of the allocated loan balance
of the pool, a relatively high concentration, four of which are in
the top ten.  Hotel properties have higher cash flow volatility
than traditional property types, as their income, which is derived
from daily contracts rather than multi-year leases, and their
expenses, which are often mostly fixed, are quite high as a
percentage of revenue.  These two factors cause revenue to fall
swiftly during a downturn and cash flow to fall even faster,
because of the high operating leverage.

The ratings assigned to the Certificates by DBRS are based
exclusively on the credit provided by the transaction structure
and underlying trust assets.  All classes will be subject to
ongoing surveillance, which could result in upgrades or downgrades
by DBRS after the date of issuance.


MORGAN STANLEY 2014-C14: Fitch Rates $12MM Class G Certs 'B-sf'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust,
series 2014-C14 commercial mortgage pass-through certificates:

--$59,200,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$295,600,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$90,400,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$173,800,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$160,000,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$256,038,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$1,149,631,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$114,593,000b class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$81,324,000b class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$264,304,000b class PST 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$68,387,000b class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$81,324,000ac class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$66,538,000c class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$20,331,000c class E 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$16,635,000c class F 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$12,938,000c class G 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

(a) Notional amount and interest only.
(b) Class A-S, class B and class C certificates may be exchanged
for class PST certificates, and class PST certificates may be
exchanged for class A-S, class B and class C certificates.
(c) Privately placed pursuant to Rule 144A.

Fitch does not rate the $62,841,800 class H or the interest-only
class X-C.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership in the trust,
primary assets of which are 58 loans secured by 75 commercial
properties having an aggregate principal balance of approximately
$1.479 billion as of the cutoff date. The loans were contributed
to the trust by Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC; Bank
of America, National Association; and CIBC Inc.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 85.4% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 86.5%, and asset summary reviews
on 86.5% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch Leverage: The Fitch stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) and loan-to-value (LTV) of 1.24x and 104.3%, respectively,
represent increased leverage relative to recent Fitch-rated
conduit transactions in 2013. Fitch-rated deals that closed in
2013 had average Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.29x and 101.6%,
respectively.

Increased Pool Concentration: The top three loans in the pool
represent 26.7% of the total pool balance, which is among the
highest concentrations among Fitch-rated transactions between 2012
and 2014. The top 10 loans in the pool represent 55.1% of the
total pool balance, which is slightly higher than the 2012 and
2013 average top 10 concentrations of 54.2% and 54.5%,
respectively.

Large Hotel and Multifamily Concentration: At 20.8% and 19.1%,
respectively, these levels are among the highest hotel and
multifamily concentrations for Fitch-rated transactions in 2013
and 2014.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 9.45% below
the most recent reported net operating income (NOI) (for
properties for which NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period). Unanticipated further
declines in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and
loss severity on defaulted loans and could result in potential
rating actions on the certificates. Fitch evaluated the
sensitivity of the ratings assigned to MSBAM 2014-C14 certificates
and found that the transaction displays average sensitivity to
further declines in NCF. In a scenario in which NCF declined a
further 10% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf'
certificates to 'A+sf' could result. In a scenario in which NCF
declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of the junior
'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB+sf' could result. In a more severe
scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's NCF, a
downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB-sf' could
result. The presale report includes a detailed explanation of
additional stresses and sensitivities.

The master servicer will be Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, rated 'CMS1-' by Fitch. The special servicer will be
Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, rated 'CSS2-' by Fitch.


MORTGAGE CAPITAL 1998-MC2: Fitch Ups $13.7MM Class J Certs to 'BB'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one class and affirmed one class of
Mortgage Capital Funding, Inc.'s (MCF) commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates series 1998-MC2.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrade is due to increasing credit enhancement and stable
performance of the remaining pool.  Fitch modeled losses of 3.4%
of the remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool
balance total 1.6%, including $15.2 million (1.5% of the original
pool balance) in realized losses to date.  Fitch has designated 13
loans (60.6%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which does not include
any specially serviced loans.

As of the January 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 97.6% to $23.8 million from
$1.01 billion at issuance.  Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting class L.

Eleven of the loans within the pool have the same sponsor and are
located in Columbus, OH.  The loans are cross-defaulted and cross-
collateralized and secured by various property types: retail (ten
loans), multifamily (one loan) and office (one loan).  All the
loans have a maturity date of March 1, 2018.

The largest contributor to expected losses is a 71 unit nursing
and convalescent home in Pasadena, CA. (2.2% of the pool).  The
debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) has been below 1.0x for several
years, with most recently reported negative cash flow due to high
operating expenses and decreased income. The loan has remained
current.

Rating Sensitivity

The Rating Outlook on class J remains Stable due to increasing
credit enhancement and continued paydown.

Fitch upgrades the following class as indicated:

-- $13.7 million class J to 'BBsf' from 'B+sf'; Outlook Stable

Fitch affirms the following class but revises RE as indicated:

-- $7.6 million class K at 'CCCsf', RE 100%.

The class A-1, A-2 and B through H certificates have paid in full.
Fitch does not rate the class L certificates.  Fitch previously
withdrew the rating on the interest-only class X certificates.


NEWSTAR COMMERCIAL: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to CCC+
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-2, B, C, D, and E notes from NewStar Commercial Loan Trust
2006-1, a U.S. middle-market collateralized loan obligation
transaction managed by NewStar Financial Inc.  At the same time,
Standard & Poor's removed these ratings from CreditWatch, where
they were placed with positive implications on Nov. 14, 2013.

The upgrades mainly reflect paydowns to the class A-1 and A-2
notes and a subsequent increase in the overcollateralization (O/C)
available to support the notes since December 2012, when S&P last
took a rating action on this transaction.  The transaction has
since paid down the class A-1 and A-2 notes by approximately
$97.0 million and $12.9 million, respectively.  This has left the
class A-1 notes at 28.44% of their original balance and the class
A-2 notes at 30.45% of their maximum issuance amount.  The
transaction exited its reinvestment period in June 2011.

The rating on the class E notes had been constrained at 'CCC+
(sf)' by the application of the largest obligor default test, a
supplemental stress test S&P introduced as part of its 2009
corporate criteria update.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
assigned to the notes remain consistent with the credit
enhancement available to support them, and S&P will take further
rating actions as it deems necessary.

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

NewStar Commercial Loan Trust 2006-1
                   Rating
Class        To           From
A-1          AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2          AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B            AAA (sf)     AA (sf)/Watch Pos
C            AA (sf)      BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D            A (sf)       B+ (sf)/Watch Pos
E            BBB (sf)     CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos

TRANSACTION INFORMATION
Issuer:             NewStar Commercial Loan Trust 2006-1
Collateral manager: NewStar Financial Inc.
Underwriter:        Wachovia Securities Inc.
Trustee:            U.S. Bank N.A.
Transaction type:   Cash flow collateralized loan obligation


OAKTREE CLO 2014-1: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to Oaktree
CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Oaktree CLO 2014-1 LLC's $462.0 million floating-
rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation backed by a
revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly syndicated senior-
secured loans.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the rated notes through
      the subordination of cash flows that are payable to the
      subordinated notes.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (not counting the excess spread), and cash flow structure,
      which can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation (CDO) criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

   -- The diversified collateral portfolio, which primarily
      comprises broadly syndicated, speculative-grade senior-
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- S&P's projections regarding the timely interest and ultimate
      principal payments on the rated notes, which S&P assessed
      using its cash flow analysis and assumptions commensurate
      with the assigned ratings under various interest-rate
      scenarios, including LIBOR ranging from 0.2365%-13.8385%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization and interest
      coverage tests, a failure of which will lead to the
      diversion of interest and principal proceeds to reduce the
      balance of the rated notes outstanding.

   -- The transaction's interest diversion test, a failure of
      which will lead to the reclassification of excess interest
      proceeds that are available before paying uncapped
      administrative expenses, incentive management fees, and
      subordinated note payments into principal proceeds for
      additional collateral asset purchases during the
      reinvestment period.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Oaktree CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Oaktree CLO 2014-1 LLC

Class                   Rating          Amount (mil. $)
A-1                     AAA (sf)                310.000
A-2A                    AA (sf)                  60.000
A-2B                    AA (sf)                  10.000
B (deferrable)          A (sf)                   35.000
C (deferrable)          BBB (sf)                 25.000
D (deferrable)          BB (sf)                  22.000
Subordinated notes      NR                       54.500

NR-Not rated.


PHOENIX CLO II: Moodys Affirms 'Ba3' Rating on 2 Note Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Phoenix CLO II, Ltd.:

$65,300,000 Class B Second Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due April 25, 2019, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on
August 29, 2011 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf);

$16,000,000 Class C-1 Third Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due April 25, 2019, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
August 29, 2011 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf);

$5,500,000 Class C-2 Third Priority Deferrable Fixed Rate Notes
Due April 25, 2019, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on August
29, 2011 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf);

$1,700,000 Class 3 Combination Notes Due April 25, 2019 (current
Rated Balance of $913,310), Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on
August 29, 2011 Upgraded to A3 (sf).

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

$499,600,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due April
25, 2019 (current outstanding balance of $481,537,896), Affirmed
Aaa (sf); previously on August 29, 2011 Upgraded to Aaa (sf);

$24,100,000 Class D-1 Fourth Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due April 25, 2019 (current outstanding balance of
$22,050,327), Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on August 29, 2011
Upgraded to Ba3 (sf);

$1,500,000 Class D-2 Fourth Priority Deferrable Fixed Rate Notes
Due April 25, 2019 (current outstanding balance of $1,372,428),
Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on August 29, 2011 Upgraded to Ba3
(sf).

Phoenix CLO II, Ltd., issued in March 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans, with some exposure to CLO tranches. The
transaction's reinvestment period will end in April 2014.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions reflect the benefit of the short period of
time remaining before the end of the deal's reinvestment period in
April 2014. In light of the reinvestment restrictions during the
amortization period, and therefore the limited ability of the
manager to effect significant changes to the current collateral
pool, Moody's analyzed the deal assuming a higher likelihood that
the collateral pool characteristics will maintain a positive
buffer relative to certain covenant requirements. In particular,
Moody's assumed that the deal will benefit from lower WARF, and
higher WAS and WARR levels compared to the covenant levels.
Moody's modeled a WARF of 2570 compared to a covenant of 2645, a
WAS of 3.14% compared to a covenant of 2.90%, and a WARR of 51.65%
compared to a covenant of 43.50%. Furthermore, the transaction's
reported OC ratios have been stable over the last year.

The rating action on the Class 3 Combination Notes reflects the
continued reduction of the Rated Balance of the notes, which has
paid down from excess proceeds coming from its Class B Component
and Class 3 Subordinated Notes Component distributions. The Rated
Balance of the notes has been reduced by $0.2 million or 18% since
January 2013, with $0.12 million or 10% since July 2013.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
November 2013.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will commence and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed defaulted recoveries
assuming the lower of the market price and the recovery rate in
order to account for potential volatility in market prices.
Realization of higher than assumed recoveries would positively
impact the CLO.

6) Long-dated assets: The presence of assets that mature after the
CLO's legal maturity date exposes the deal to liquidation risk on
those assets. This risk is borne first by investors with the
lowest priority in the capital structure. Moody's assumes that the
terminal value of an asset upon liquidation at maturity will be
equal to the lower of an assumed liquidation value (depending on
the extent to which the asset's maturity lags that of the
liabilities) or the asset's current market value.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2056)

Class A: 0

Class B: +2

Class C-1: +2

Class C-2: +2

Class D-1: +1

Class D-2: +1

Class 3 Combination: +3

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3084)

Class A: 0

Class B: -2

Class C-1: -1

Class C-2: -1

Class D-1: 0

Class D-2: 0

Class 3 Combination: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in November 2013.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $610.3 million, defaulted
par of $20.3 million, a weighted average default probability of
16.06% (implying a WARF of 2570), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 51.65%, a diversity score of 60 and a weighted
average spread of 3.14%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


REALT 2005-2: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on Class K Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings of 16 classes of
Real Estate Asset Liquidity Trust (REALT) Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-2 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D-1, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. D-2, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. E-1, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E-2, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Caa1
(sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

Cl. XC-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. XC-2, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings of the P&I classes were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges.

The ratings of the IO classes, Class XC-1 and XC-2, were affirmed
based on the credit performance (or the weighted average rating
factor or WARF) of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.4% of the
current balance, compared to 2.1% at Moody's last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in
April 2005.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 23 compared to 24 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the February 12, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 44% to $349 million
from $622 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 61 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 9% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 55% of
the pool. Three loans, constituting 9% of the pool, have
investment-grade credit assessments. Seven loans, constituting 5%
of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

Ten loans, constituting 16% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Two loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $0.2 million (for an average loss
severity of 7.4%). No loans are currently in special servicing.

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for three poorly
performing loans, constituting 7% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $3.7 million (a 15% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 81% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 71% compared to 78%
at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans
with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially
serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects
a weighted average haircut of 12% to the most recently available
net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted
average capitalization rate of 9.4%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.59X and 1.52X,
respectively, compared to 1.48X and 1.40X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The largest loan with a credit assessment is the Toronto Congress
Centre Loan ($15.0 million -- 4.3% of the pool), which is secured
by a 500,000 square foot (SF) convention center located in
Mississauga, Ontario. The property is 100% leased to an affiliate
of the borrower through December 2018. The loan is full recourse
to sponsor Sofinco Properties Inc. Moody's current credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are Aa3 and 1.80X, respectively,
compared to Aa3 and 1.74X at Moody's last review.

The second loan with a credit assessment is the 1849 Yonge Street
Loan ($12.6 million -- 3.6% of the pool), which is secured by a
97,100 SF office building located in downtown Toronto, Ontario.
The property's tenant roster consists predominantly of medical
office tenants and was 92% leased as of February 2013, the same as
at last review. Property performance has remained stable. The loan
is full recourse to sponsor Healthcare Properties Holdings.
Moody's current credit assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa2 and
1.58X, respectively, compared to Baa3 and 1.54X at last review.

The third loan with a credit assessment is the Jutland Road Loan
($4.8 million -- 1.4% of the pool), which is secured by an 87,900
SF office building located in Victoria, British Columbia. Ninety
percent of the net rentable area (NRA) is leased to agencies of
the Canadian government through 2014-2017. As of March 2013, the
property was 100% leased, the same as at last review. The loan is
full recourse to sponsor Jawl Holdings. The loan is benefiting
from stable performance and loan amortization. Moody's current
credit assessment and stressed DSCR are A3 and 2.42X,
respectively, compared to A3 and 2.15X at Moody's last review.

The top three conduit loans represent 23% of the pool balance. The
largest conduit loan is the AMEC Building Loan ($30.4 million --
8.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 222,300 SF Class A office
building located in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia. AMEC, a
project management/consulting firm, leases 65% of the net rentable
area (NRA) and extended its lease maturity from 2015 to 2020. As
of June 2013, the property was 100% leased, the same as at last
review. The loan is full recourse to sponsor Morguard REIT.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 56% and 1.63X, respectively,
compared to 57% and 1.61X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Kitchener Portfolio Loan ($25.8
million -- 7.4% of the pool), which is secured by two office
properties totaling 400,200 SF and located in Kitchener, Ontario.
As of March 2013, the properties were 97% leased compared to 96%
at last review. The loan is benefiting from amortization and is
full recourse to sponsor The Cora Group. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 46% and 2.22X, respectively, compared to 56% and 1.83X at
last review.

The third largest loan is the InnVest Portfolio Loan ($25.7
million -- 7.3% of the pool), which is secured by four Radisson
hotels totaling 707 rooms and located in four distinct markets.
The loans Radisson Suites Toronto and Radisson London are on the
master servicer's watchlist due to DSCR falling below CREFC's
threshold as a result of declining revenue from low occupancy.
RevPAR and occupancy at all properties except the Radisson Laval
have declined since last review. The hotel's occupancy rate and
revenue per available room (RevPAR) for calendar year 2012 were
58% and $60, respectively, compared to 61% and $66 for 2011. The
loans are full recourse to the sponsor InnVest REIT. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 104% and 1.20X, respectively, compared to
108% and 1.15X at last review.


REALT 2006-2: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on 3 Cert Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings on sixteen classes
of Real Estate Asset Liquidity Trust (REALT) Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-2 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D-1, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. D-2, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. E-1, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E-2, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. XC-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. XC-2, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the P&I classes were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges.

The ratings on the IO classes XC-1 and XC-2 were affirmed based on
the credit performance of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 1.2% of the
current balance, compared to 1.3% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 1.0% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 1.1% at the last review.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in April 2005, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 17, the same as at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the January 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 30% to $286.8
million from $412.2 million at securitization. The certificates
are collateralized by 48 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 10% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting
68% of the pool. Five loans, constituting 34% of the pool, have
investment-grade credit assessments. Three loans, constituting 4%
of the pool, have defeased and are secured by Canadian government
securities.

Seven loans, constituting 6% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Two loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $666,700 (for an average loss severity
of 60%). There are no loans in special servicing at this time.

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for one poorly
performing loans, constituting less than 1% of the pool.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 20%.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 65%, compared to 71% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a
weighted average haircut of 9.7% to the most recently available
net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted
average capitalization rate of 9.1%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.64X and 1.73X,
respectively, compared to 1.55X and 1.59X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The largest loan with a credit assessment is the Crombie Pool A
Loan ($28.8 million -- 10.0% of the pool). The loan is secured by
a cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted portfolio of four
anchored and unanchored retail centers located in Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, and Newfoundland totaling 547,700 square feet (SF). The
sponsor is Crombie REIT, a Canadian Real Estate Investment Trust
based in Stellarton, Nova Scotia. As of December 2012, the
portfolio's weighted average occupancy was 87% compared to 85% at
last review. Moody's current credit assessment and stressed DSCR
are Baa3 and 1.42X, respectively, the same as at last review.

The second largest loan with a credit assessment is the Trinity
Crossing Orleans Loan ($28.1 million -- 9.8% of the pool), which
is secured by a 200,000 SF retail center located in Orleans,
Ontario. The property anchor is the Real Canadian Superstore,
which occupies space not included in the loan collateral. As of
January 2014, the property was 100% leased, the same as at last
review. Performance remains stable. Moody's current credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa3 and 1.16X, respectively,
compared toBaa3 and 1.14X at last review.

The third loan with a credit assessment is the Sandman Vancouver
Loan ($19.6 million -- 6.8% of the pool). The loan is secured by a
302-room, full-service hotel located in downtown Vancouver,
British Columbia. RevPar and occupancy in 2012 were $89.33 and
69%, respectively, compared to $95.55 and 65% in 2011. Moody's
current credit assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa2 and 1.84X
respectively, compared to Baa2 and 1.79X at last review.

The fourth loan with a credit assessment is the Merivale Market
Shopping Centre Loan ($13.2 million -- 4.6% of the pool), which is
secured by an 78,800 SF neighborhood retail center located in
Ottawa, Ontario. The anchor tenant is the Food Basics supermarket
chain. The loan sponsor is RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust,
Canada's largest REIT. As of January 2014, the property was 100%
leased, the same as at last review. Moody's current credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa3 and 1.08X respectively,
compared to Baa3 and 1.05X at last review.

The fifth loan with a credit assessment is the Abbey Plaza Loan
($7.3 million -- 2.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 95,300
SF grocery-anchored neighborhood retail center in Oakville,
Ontario. As of August 2012, the property was 100% leased, the same
as at last review. Moody's current credit assessment and stressed
DSCR are Aa1 and 2.21X respectively, compared to Aa1 and 2.11X at
last review.

The top three conduit loans represent 26% of the pool. The largest
loan is the Distillery District Loan ($28.1 million -- 9.8% of the
pool), which is secured by a 330,000 SF mixed-use redevelopment of
the historic Gooderham & Worts distillery site located in the east
end of downtown Toronto, Ontario. As of December 2012, the
property was 99% leased compared to 97% at last review. Moody's
current LTV and stressed DSCR are 44% and 2.21X, respectively,
compared to are 56% and 1.73X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Dominion Square Loan ($25.7 million
-- 9.0% of the pool), which represents a 50% pari passu interest
in a first mortgage loan. The loan is secured by a 12-story
373,000 SF, mixed-use building located in downtown Montreal,
Quebec. Local and state government agencies represent 26% of the
tenancy in the building. As of March 2013, the property was 97%
leased compared to 87% at the last review. Moody's current LTV and
stressed DSCR are 88% and 1.11X, respectively, compared to 99% and
0.98X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Crombie Pool B Loan ($19.5 million -
- 6.8% of the pool). The loan is secured by a cross-collateralized
and cross-defaulted portfolio of three anchored retail centers and
one mixed-use property located in British Columbia, Nova Scotia,
and New Brunswick. The largest property is the 386,000 SF Aberdeen
Shopping Centre located in Richmond, British Columbia,
representing nearly 50% of the portfolio net rentable area. As of
December 2012, weighted average occupancy was 67%. Moody's current
LTV and stressed DSCR are 80% and 1.30X respectively, compared to
67% and 1.54X at last review


RUTLAND RATED: S&P Reinstates 'CCC-' Ratings on 2 Note Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services reinstated its ratings on two
classes from Rutland Rated Investments Series Archer 2007-1 (48),
both of which are synthetic corporate investment-grade
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions.

S&P suspended the ratings on Sept. 27, 2013, because it had not
received sufficient timely information from the transaction
arrangers to maintain the ratings.  S&P has now been provided the
necessary information for it to reinstate the ratings.

RATINGS REINSTATED

Rutland Rated Investments

US$5 mil Rutland Rated Investments
- Series 48 Tranche A3A-F (Archer 2007-1)
Secured Limited Recourse Credit-Linked Notes

Class               Rating
A3A-F               CCC- (sf)

Rutland Rated Investments

US$5 mil Rutland Rated Investments
- Series 48 Tranche A3-L (Archer 2007-1)
Secured Limited Recourse Credit-Linked Notes

Class               Rating
A3A-L               CCC- (sf)


SAGUARO ISSUER: Moody's Reviews 'B2' Rating on 2 Securities Series
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced that it places on review for
downgrade its ratings of the following units issued by Saguaro
Issuer Trust:

$11,000,000 aggregate face amount of Principal Units, Series K,
Ba2 Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade; previously on
November 7, 2013 Confirmed at Ba2

$34,000,000 aggregate face amount of Principal Units, Series L,
Ba2 Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade; previously on
November 7, 2013 Confirmed at Ba2

Ratings Rationale

The ratings of the Series K and L units are based on the credit
quality of the underlying securities and the legal structure of
the note. The rating actions result from rating changes on the
underlying securities, which are the Undated Primary Capital
Floating Rate Notes, Series A issued by National Westminster Bank
PLC, and the Undated Primary Capital Floating Rate Notes, Series B
issued by National Westminster Bank PLC, whose Ba2 ratings were
placed on reviewed for downgrade on February 12, 2014.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in April 2010.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating

Moody's says that the underlying securities are subject to a high
level of macroeconomic uncertainty, which is manifest in uncertain
credit conditions across the general economy. Because these
conditions could negatively affect the ratings on the underlying
securities, they could also negatively impact the rating on the
certificate.


SIERRA CLO II: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class B-2L Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-2L, A-3L, and B-1L notes from Sierra CLO II Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation transaction managed by Apidos
Capital Management LLC.  At the same time S&P affirmed its ratings
on the class A-1L, A-1LV, and B-2L notes.  Concurrently, S&P
removed its ratings on the class A-2L, A-3L, B-1L, and B-2L from
CreditWatch, where it had placed them with positive implications
on Jan. 22, 2014.

The upgrades on the class A-2L, A-3L, and B-1L notes mainly
reflect paydowns to the class A-1L and A-1LV notes and a
subsequent increase in the overcollateralization (O/C) available
to support all of the notes since S&P's January 2013 rating
actions.  Since then, the transaction has paid down the class A-1L
and A-1LV notes by approximately $125.5 million and $19.0 million,
respectively.  These paydowns have left the class A-1L and A-1LV
notes at 48.11% of their original balances.

The trustee reported the following O/C ratio increases in the
January 2014 monthly report:

   -- The class A-2L O/C ratio was 136.39%, compared with 123.32%
      in November 2012;

   -- The class A-3L O/C ratio was 122.64%, compared with 115.17%
      in November 2012;

   -- The class B-1L O/C ratio was 114.84%, compared with 110.25%
      in November 2012; and

   -- The class B-2L O/C ratio was 107.77%, compared with 105.60%
      in November 2012.

S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A-1L, A-1LV, and B-2L notes
to reflect the available credit support consistent with their
current rating levels.

Standard & Poor's will continue to review whether, in its view,
the ratings assigned to the notes remain consistent with the
credit enhancement available to support them, and will take rating
actions as it deems necessary.

RATING ACTIONS

Sierra CLO II Ltd.
                   Rating
Class        To           From
A-1L         AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-1LV        AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-2L         AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3L         AA+ (sf)     A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-1L         A- (sf)      BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2L         BB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos

TRANSACTION INFORMATION
Issuer:             Sierra CLO II Ltd.
Co-issuer:          Sierra CLO II (Delaware) Corp.
Collateral manager: Apidos Capital Management LLC
Underwriter:        Bear Stearns Cos. LLC
Trustee:            The Bank of New York Mellon
Transaction type:   Cash flow CLO

CLO-Collateralized loan obligation.


UBS-BB 2013-C5: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. F Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on fourteen
classes in UBS-BB 2013-C5, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2013-C5 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-AB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. EC, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the P&I classes were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges.

The ratings on the IO classes X-A and X-B were affirmed because
the credit performance of the referenced classes are consistent
with Moody's expectations.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.3% of the
current balance.

Factors That Would Lead To An Upgrade Or Downgrade Of The Rating

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in
September 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a property level Herf of 20, the same as at
securitization.

Deal Performance

As of the January 10, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by less than 1% to
$1.472 billion from $1.485 million at securitization. The
certificates are collateralized by 82 mortgage loans ranging in
size from less than 1% to 15% of the pool, with the top ten loans
constituting 58% of the pool.

There are no loans on the master servicer's watchlist. The
watchlist includes loans that meet certain portfolio review
guidelines established as part of the CRE Finance Council (CREFC)
monthly reporting package. As part of Moody's ongoing monitoring
of a transaction, the agency reviews the watchlist to assess which
loans have material issues that could affect performance.

No loans have been liquidated from the pool and no loans are
currently in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 40% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 95%, compared to
96% at securitization. Moody's conduit component excludes loans
with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially
serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects
a weighted average haircut of 12% to the most recently available
net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted
average capitalization rate of 9.4%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.97X and 1.07,
respectively, compared to 1.96X and 1.06X at securitization.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 37% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Santa Anita Mall ($215.0 million -- 14.6% of
the pool), which represents a 75.4% pari passu interest in a first
mortgage loan. The total first mortgage is $285 million. The loan
is secured by 956,340 square feet (SF) of net rentable area
contained within a 1.5 million SF super-regional mall located in
Arcadia, California. The mall is located approximately 19 miles
northeast of Los Angeles, California. The property was built in
1974, and most recently renovated in 2009. The mall is anchored by
JC Penney, Macy's, and Nordstrom, none of which are part of the
collateral. Additional tenants include Forever 21, Dave &
Buster's, Sports Chalet, Gold's Gym, Urban Home, Old Navy, H&M and
Victoria's Secret. The mall also contains a borrower-owned 16-
screen AMC theater. As of October 31, 2013 the total occupancy was
97%, the same as at securitization. In-line space was
approximately 93% leased, the same as at securitization. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 81% and 1.13X, respectively, the same as
at securitization.

The second largest loan is the Valencia Town Center Loan ($195.0
million -- 13.2% of the pool), which is secured by 657,840 SF of
net rentable area contained within a 1.1 million SF super-regional
mall located in Valencia, California. The property is located
approximately 34 miles northwest of Los Angeles, California. The
property was built in 1992, expanded in 1998, and renovated and
further expanded in 2010 to include an outdoor component. The mall
is anchored by Macy's, JC Penney, and Sears. All anchor units are
owned by their respective tenants and are not included as
collateral for the loan. Additional tenants include Gold's Gym,
The Gap, Pottery Barn, Abercrombie and Fitch and Banana Republic.
The property contains a 12-screen Edwards Theaters. As of October
31, 2013 the total occupancy was 96% compared to 98% at
securitization. In-line space was approximately 94% leased
compared to 95% at securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 84% and 1.09X, respectively, the same as at securitization.

The third largest loan is the Starwood Office Portfolio ($129.7
million -- 8.8% of the pool), which is secured by six Class A
office buildings that total 1.3 million SF. The properties are
located in Charlotte, North Carolina; Fort Mill, South Carolina;
Tampa, Florida; Orlando, Florida; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The properties are occupied by 26 tenants, eight of which have
investment grade ratings and represent approximately 88% of the
net rentable area. As of September 30, 2013, the portfolio was 97%
leased, compared to 99% at securitization. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 95% and 1.13X, respectively, compared to 96% and
1.13X at securitization.


VENTURE XVI: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating on $27MM CL. B2L Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to six
classes of notes to be issued by Venture XVI CLO, Limited (the
"Issuer" or "Venture XVI").

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$310,000,000 Class A1L Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A1L Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)
$38,000,000 Class A2L Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A2L Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class A2F Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A2F Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$49,000,000 Class A3L Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class A3L Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$29,000,000 Class B1L Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class B1L Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$27,000,000 Class B2L Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class B2L Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

The Class A1L Notes, the Class A2L Notes, the Class A2F Notes, the
Class A3L Notes, the Class B1L Notes and the Class B2L Notes are
referred to herein, collectively, as the "Rated Notes."

Moody's issues provisional ratings in advance of the final sale of
financial instruments, but these ratings only represent Moody's
preliminary credit opinions. Upon a conclusive review of a
transaction and associated documentation, Moody's will endeavor to
assign definitive ratings. A definitive rating, if any, may differ
from a provisional rating.

Ratings Rationale

Moody's provisional ratings of the Rated Notes address the
expected losses posed to noteholders. The provisional ratings
reflect the risks due to defaults on the underlying portfolio of
assets, the transaction's legal structure, and the characteristics
of the underlying assets.

Venture XVI is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans
and unsecured loans. The Issuer's documents require the portfolio
to be at least 75% ramped as of the closing date.

MJX Asset Management LLC (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of
the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's four year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest
unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit
risk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue subordinated
notes. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage
tests which, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds
to pay down the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in November 2013.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case
assumptions:

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2485

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.80%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 45.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
November 2013.

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was an
important component in determining the ratings assigned to the
Rated Notes. This sensitivity analysis includes increased default
probability relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2485 to 2858)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A1L Notes: 0

Class A2L Notes: 0

Class A2F Notes: 0

Class A3L Notes: -1

Class B1L Notes: -1

Class B2L Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2485 to 3231)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A1L Notes: 0

Class A2L Notes: -1

Class A2F Notes: -1

Class A3L Notes: -3

Class B1L Notes: -2

Class B2L Notes: -1

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High.

Moody's V Scores provide a relative assessment of the quality of
available credit information and the potential variability around
the various inputs to a rating determination. The V Score ranks
transactions by the potential for significant rating changes owing
to uncertainty around the assumptions due to data quality,
historical performance, the level of disclosure, transaction
complexity, the modeling and the transaction governance that
underlie the ratings. V Scores apply to the entire transaction,
rather than individual tranches.


* Fitch Lowers 10 Bonds in 8 CMBS Resecuritizations and CRE CDOs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded eight bonds in six CMBS
resecuritizations and two classes of notes in two synthetic
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligations (CRE CDOs)
to 'Dsf', as each bond or class of notes has incurred a principal
write-down. The bonds and classes of notes were all previously
rated 'Csf', which indicates that Fitch had expected a default.
A rating action spreadsheet, titled 'Fitch Downgrades 10 Bonds in
8 CMBS Resecuritizations and CRE CDOs', dated Feb. 14, 2014,
details the individual rating actions for each rated CDO.

A copy of the spreadsheet is available at http://is.gd/YxS8gP

The actions are limited to bonds and classes of notes with
principal write-downs. The remaining bonds in the CMBS
resecuritizations have not been reviewed as part of this action.

Additionally, Fitch has withdrawn the ratings on four CMBS
resecuritizations and two synthetic CRE CDOs because all rated
bonds and classes in the transactions are now 'Dsf'.


* Moody's Hikes Ratings on $1.04 Billion of Subprime RMBS
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 29 tranches
from 12 transactions backed by Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-FRE1

Cl. A-6, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2013
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2012
Confirmed at Caa3 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 29, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WFHE2

Cl. A-2A, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. A-2B, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2012
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-WFHE2

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2013
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2013 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2013 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-WFHE4

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2013 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. A-2B, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2013 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. A-2C, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2013 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-HE1

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Fremont Home Loan Trust 2005-D

Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2012
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 29, 2010
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. M1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 29, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust,
INABS 2005-B

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on May 13, 2013 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on May 13, 2013 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust,
INABS 2005-C

Cl. A-II-3, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2013
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2013 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Nomura Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-HE1

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 17, 2013 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Popular ABS Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2005-4

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 30, 2013 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

Issuer: Popular ABS Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2006-B

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 2, 2013 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2006-WM1

Cl. A-1B, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2013
Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. A-2C, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 8, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The upgrades are a result of improving performance of the related
pools and/or faster pay-down of the bonds due to high
prepayments/faster liquidations than previously expected. The
actions reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

The primary source of assumption uncertainty is the uncertainty in
our central macroeconomic forecast and performance volatility due
to servicer-related issues. The unemployment rate fell from 7.9%
in January 2013 to 6.6% in January 2014. Moody's forecasts an
unemployment central range of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014.
Performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent on
servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing transfers
or other policy or regulatory change can impact the performance of
these transactions.


* Moody's Takes Action on $1BB of Subprime RMBS Issued 2005-2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 20 tranches,
and downgraded the ratings of four tranches from 12 subprime
transactions backed by Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: Aames Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-1

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 28, 2010 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 28, 2010 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2006-R2

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Argent Securities Trust 2006-W2

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 19, 2013
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2005-14

Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 14,
2010 Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: MBIA Insurance Corporation (B3 on review for
possible upgrade Feb 14, 2014)

Cl. 3-A-2, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. 3-A-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2005-AB3

Cl. 1-A-1, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-1

Cl. AV-2, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. AF-3, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-BC1

Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-2

Cl. M2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 6, 2010
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-FFH3

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010 Downgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: First NLC Trust 2005-3

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: First NLC Trust 2005-4

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-WF1

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on May 5, 2010
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on May 5, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on May 5, 2010
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The action is a result of the recent performance of the underlying
pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate fell to 6.6% in January 2014 from 7.9%
in January 2013 . Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House prices
are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expects
house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower increases than
Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions. Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly
dependent on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from
servicing transfers or other policy or regulatory change can
impact the performance of these transactions.


* Moody's Takes Action on $83.3MM US RMBS Issued 2004-2007
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of two tranches
and downgraded the ratings of three tranches issued by multiple
RMBS issuers. The tranches are backed by Scratch & Dent RMBS loans
issued from 2004 to 2007.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-QH1

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2012
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: MASTR Specialized Loan Trust 2004-01

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2012
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: RAAC Series 2005-SP2 Trust

Cl. A-II, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on May 19, 2011
Confirmed at B3 (sf)

Cl. A-II-IO-A, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on May 19, 2011
Confirmed at B3 (sf)

Cl. M-I-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 17, 2012
Upgraded to B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The ratings downgraded are a result of deteriorating
performance leading to faster depletion of credit support for the
tranches than previously anticipated. The ratings upgraded are due
to a build up of credit enhancement provided by the subordinate
tranches.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate fell to 6.6% in January 2014 from 7.9%
in January 2013 . Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


* S&P Withdraws Ratings on 2 Classes From 2 CDO Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its rating on the
class A-2 notes from ABACUS 2004-3 Ltd., a synthetic high-grade
structured finance collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
transaction.  At the same time, S&P withdrew its rating on the
class A notes from Salisbury International Investments Ltd.'s
series 2005-6, a synthetic CDO transaction backed by commercial
mortgage backed securities.

The rating withdrawals follow notice of redemption by the two
transactions.

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

ABACUS 2004-3 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-2                 NR                  AA+ (sf)

Salisbury International Investments Ltd.
Series 2005-6 notes
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A                   NR                  CCC- (sf)


* S&P Withdraws Ratings on 32 Classes from 16 CDO Transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on 22
classes of notes from 12 collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
transactions, two classes from two cash flow collateralized debt
obligation (CDO) transactions backed by mezzanine structured
finance assets, seven classes from two cash flow CDO transactions
backed primarily by CLO tranches, and one class from a cash flow
CDO retrenching transaction.

The withdrawals follow the notes' complete paydown, as reflected
in the most recent trustee-issued note payment reports.

The following transactions redeemed their classes in full after
providing notice to S&P that the equity holders had directed
optional redemptions:

   -- Connecticut Valley CLO Funding IV Ltd.
   -- MCG Commercial Loan Trust 2006-1
   -- ZAIS Investment Grade Ltd VI Ltd.

These transactions have fully paid off the last of their rated
notes:

   -- CIT CLO 2012-1 Ltd.
   -- Galaxy V CLO Ltd.
   -- Gale Funding Ltd.
   -- GSC Partners CDO Fund VI Ltd.

The remaining 10 transactions have other rated tranches still
outstanding in their capital structures.

The following CLO transactions, originated within the past year,
had "X note" tranches that were paid in full, and on which S&P
withdrew its ratings.

   -- CIFC Funding 2013-II Ltd.
   -- GLG Ore Hill CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
   -- Mountain View CLO 2013-1 Ltd.

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

AMMC CLO V Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
A-1-B              NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                NR                  AAA (sf)
B                  NR                  AAA (sf)

Babson CLO Ltd. 2006-I
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
A-1                NR                  AAA (sf)

CIFC Funding 2013-II Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
X                  NR                  AAA (sf)

CIT CLO 2012-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
B                  NR                  AA (sf)/Watch Pos
C                  NR                  A (sf)/Watch Pos

Connecticut Valley CLO Funding IV Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
A-1                NR                  BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2                NR                  BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3                NR                  B+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B                  NR                  B- (sf)/Watch Pos
C                  NR                  CCC- (sf)/Watch Pos

Galaxy V CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
B                  NR                  AAA (sf)
C                  NR                  AAA (sf)
D-1                NR                  A+ (sf)
D-2                NR                  A+ (sf)

Gale Force 2 CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
A                  NR                  AAA (sf)
B                  NR                  AAA (sf)

Gale Funding Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
B                  NR                  AAA (sf)

GLG Ore Hill CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
X-1                NR                  AAA (sf)

GSC Partners CDO Fund VI Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
C-1                NR                  AAA (sf)
C-2                NR                  AAA (sf)
D                  NR                  A+ (sf)
Composite
securities        NR                  AAAP (sf)

Highland Loan Funding V Ltd.
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
A-II-A             NR                  BBB+ (sf)
A-II-B             NR                  BBB+ (sf)

MCG Commercial Loan Trust 2006-1
                            Rating
Class              To                  From
D                  NR                  BB+ (sf)

Mountain View CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                  NR                  AAA (sf)

Saturn Ventures I Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-2                 NR                  CCC+ (sf)

TIAA Structured Finance CDO II Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  BB (sf)

ZAIS Investment Grade Ltd. VI
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
B-1                 NR                  AA+ (sf)
B-2                 NR                  AA+ (sf)

NR-Not rated.


                             *********

Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative prices
for bond issues that reportedly trade well below par.  Prices are
obtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sources during
the prior week we think are reliable.  Those sources may not,
however, be complete or accurate.  The Monday Bond Pricing table
is compiled on the Friday prior to publication.  Prices reported
are not intended to reflect actual trades.  Prices for actual
trades are probably different.  Our objective is to share
information, not make markets in publicly traded securities.
Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buy or
sell any security of any kind.  It is likely that some entity
affiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuers'
public debt and equity securities about which we report.

Each Tuesday edition of the TCR contains a list of companies with
insolvent balance sheets whose shares trade higher than $3 per
share in public markets.  At first glance, this list may look like
the definitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short.
Don't be fooled.  Assets, for example, reported at historical cost
net of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm's
assets.  A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet for
liabilities that may never materialize.  The prices at which
equity securities trade in public market are determined by more
than a balance sheet solvency test.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the TCR.  Submissions about insolvency-
related conferences are encouraged.  Send announcements to
conferences@bankrupt.com by e-mail.

On Thursdays, the TCR delivers a list of recently filed
Chapter 11 cases involving less than $1,000,000 in assets and
liabilities delivered to the nation's bankruptcy courts.  The
list includes links to freely downloadable of these small-dollar
petitions in Acrobat PDF documents.

Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book of
interest to troubled company professionals.  All titles are
available at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com.  Go to
http://www.bankrupt.com/books/to order any title today.

Monthly Operating Reports are summarized in every Saturday edition
of the TCR.

The Sunday TCR delivers securitization rating news from the week
then-ending.

                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Troubled Company Reporter is a daily newsletter co-published
by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Jhonas Dampog, Marites Claro, Joy Agravante, Rousel Elaine
Tumanda, Valerie Udtuhan, Howard C. Tolentino, Carmel Paderog,
Meriam Fernandez, Joel Anthony G. Lopez, Cecil R. Villacampa,
Sheryl Joy P. Olano, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Carlo Fernandez,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014.  All rights reserved.  ISSN: 1520-9474.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.  Information contained
herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is
not guaranteed.

The TCR subscription rate is $975 for 6 months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.


                  *** End of Transmission ***