TCR_Public/140810.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, August 10, 2014, Vol. 18, No. 221

                             Headlines

AGATE BAY 2014-1: S&P Assigns BB+ Rating on Class B-4 Notes
ALESCO PREFERRED VI: Moody's Confirms Ca Rating on 3 Note Classes
ALM XI: Moody's Assigns '(P)Ba3' Rating on $35.7MM Class D Notes
AMAC CDO: Moody's Raises Rating on Class C Notes to 'Caa1'
APIDOS CLO XVIII: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $8MM Class E Notes

ARES XXII: Moody's Affirms 'Ba1' Rating on $11MM Class C Notes
ARES XXXI: Fitch to Assign 'BBsf' Rating to Class D Notes
BAMLL COMMERCIAL 2014-ICTS: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
BANC OF AMERICA 2005-4: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Class K Notes
BANC OF AMERICA 2007-1: Fitch Cuts Rating on Cl. A-J Certs to CC

BEAR STEARNS 2005-PWR8: Moody's Affirms C Rating on CL. G Secs.
BEAR STEARNS 2007-TOP28: Fitch Cuts Rating on Cl. D Secs to CCC
BHMS 2014-ATLS: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB+ Rating on Class D-FL Notes
BIRCHWOOD PARK: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating on 2 Note Classes
BRIDGEPORT CLO II: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class C Notes

CAPITAL TRUST 2004-1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class E Notes to CC
CAPMARK VII: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 6 Note Classes
CARFINANCE CAPITAL: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB-' Rating on E Notes
CARLYLE GLOBAL 2014-3: Moody's Rates Class E Notes '(P)B3'
CDC COMMERCIAL 2002-FX1: Moody's Ups Rating on Cl. P Certs to Ba1

CENT CDO 15: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
CIFC FUNDING 2014-IV: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating on Cl. F Notes
CITIGROUP MORTGAGE: Moody's Takes Action on $6.3MM RMBS From 2003
COMM 2003-LNB1: Moody's Lowers Rating on Class X-1 Certs to Caa3
COMM 2005-FL11: Moody's Lowers Rating on 2 Cert. Classes to 'C'

COMM MORTGAGE 2004-LNB2: Fitch Hikes Cl. J Certs Rating to 'Bsf'
COMM MORTGAGE 2006-C8: Fitch Affirms 'CC' Rating on Class B Certs
COMM 2014-FL4: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB-' Rating on 3 Certificates
COMM 2014-UBS4: DBRS Finalizes '(P)BB' Rating on Class E Secs.
COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE 1999-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on H Certs

CREST 2003-2: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'CC'
CSFB 2006-TFL2: Moody's Raises Rating on Class K Certs to 'Caa1'
CSFB 2007-TFL1: Moody's Affirms 'C' Ratings on 2 Certificates
CSMC TRUST 2014-IVR3: S&P Assigns BB+ Rating on Class B-3 Notes
CUTWATER 2014-I: Moody's Assigns 'B2' Rating on Class E Notes

CVP CASCADE CLO-2: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
CVS CREDIT: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Series A-2 Certificates
DENALI CAPITAL VI: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. B-2L Notes to Ba2
DUANE STREET III: Moody's Raises Rating on Class E Notes to Ba1
EATON VANCE 2014-1: Moody's Assigns 'Ba3' Rating on Class E Notes

EVERGLADES RE 2013-I: S&P Affirms 'B(sf)' Rating on Class A Notes
FLAGSHIP CLO V: Moody's Affirms 'B1' Rating on Class B Notes
G-FORCE CDO 2006-1: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 4 Note Classes
GE COMMERCIAL 2004-C3: Moody's Cuts Cl. X-1 Debt Rating to Caa2
GMAC COMMERCIAL 1999-C2: Moody's Cuts Cl. X Certs Rating to Caa1

GMAC COMMERCIAL 2004-C2: Moody's Cuts Cl. X-1 Debt Rating to Caa1
GRAMERCY REAL 2005-1: Moody's Affirms Caa2 Rating on Cl. H Notes
HARBOURVIEW CLO 2006-1: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes to BB-
HEWETT'S ISLAND VI: Moody's Raises Rating on Class E Notes to Ba1
JP MORGAN 2000-C10: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class G Notes to 'C'

JP MORGAN 2003-CIBC6: Moody's Cuts Cl. X-1 Secs. Rating to 'B2'
JP MORGAN 2004-PNC1: Fitch Affirms 'CCCsf' Rating on Cl. F Secs.
JP MORGAN 2005-LDP5: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Rating on Class Q Certs
JP MORGAN 2007-CIBC20: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 5 Certs
JP MORGAN 2008-C2: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on Cl. C Certs

JP MORGAN 2012-HSBC: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Class E Secs.
JP MORGAN 2013-C14: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certs
JP MORGAN 2013-C14: Moody's Affirms 'B2' Rating on Cl. G Certs
JP MORGAN 2014-C22: Moody's Rates Class UHP Certs '(P)Ba3'
KKR CLO 9: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating on $33.7MM Class E Notes

LB COMMERCIAL 1998-C4: Moody's Cuts Rating on Cl. X Secs. to Caa2
LB COMMERCIAL 1999-C2: Moody's Hikes Cl. K Certs' Rating to Caa3
LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2002-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. S Certs
LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2004-C7: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl N Certs
LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2004-C8: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 2 Notes

LCM XVI: S&P Affirms 'BB-' Rating on Class E Notes
LEGG MASON II: Moody's Affirms 'Caa1' Rating on Class C Notes
LEHMAN MORTGAGE 2007-5: Moody's Cuts Rating on $108MM of RMBS
MAC CAPITAL: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'BB'
MERRILL LYNCH 2007-C1: S&P Affirms 'B-' Rating on Class AM Notes

MORGAN STANLEY 1998-CF1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on 2 Certs
MORGAN STANLEY 2000-PRIN: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on X Secs.
MORGAN STANLEY 2006-HE3: Moody's Hikes Class A-2c Debt to 'Caa2'
MORGAN STANLEY 2006-HQ9: S&P Lowers Rating on Class H Notes to D
MORGAN STANLEY 2006-HQ10: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 3 Certs

MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ13: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. H Certs
MORGAN STANLEY 2007-TOP27: Fitch Cuts Rating on Class B Notes to B
MORGAN STANLEY 2014-CPT: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Rating on Class G Notes
NEWCASTLE CDO VI: Moody's Affirms 'B1' Rating on Class I-MM Notes
NOB HILL: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class E Notes

NORTHWOODS CAPITAL XII: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on E Notes
NYLIM STRATFORD 2001-1: Moody's Cuts Class B Notes' Rating to Ba2
OAKTREE CLO 2014-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
OFSI FUND VII: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL 2014-2: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class C Notes

OZLM VIII: Moody's Assigns '(P)B2' Rating on $10MM Class E Notes
PASADENA CDO: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class C Notes to 'Ca'
PEGASUS AVIATION: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Securities to 'Ca'
PHOENIX CLO III: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. E Notes to 'Ba3'
PREFERRED TERM IX: Moody's Raises Ratings on 3 Note Classes to B3

PREFERRED TERM X: Moody's Hikes Ratings on 3 Note Classes to Caa1
PREFERRED TERM XI: Moody's Raises Rating on 3 Note Classes to B2
PREFERRED TERM XII: Moody's Hikes Rating on 3 Note Classes to B3
PREFERRED TERM XVIII: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. B Secs. to Ba3
PREFERRED TERM XXI: Moody's Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to Ca

PRETSL COMBINATION: Moody's Ups $7.7MM Combi Certs Rating to Caa1
RALI RMBS: Moody's Takes Action on $78MM RMBS Issued 2002-2003
RED RIVER: Moody's Hikes Rating on $31.5MM Class E Notes to Ba2
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on Class C Notes
SANDELMAN REALTY I: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class E Notes to B1

SARANAC CLO III: Moody's Assigns '(P)Ba3' Rating on Class E Notes
SARGAS CLO I: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class D Notes
SFA ABS III: Fitch Lowers Rating on Class B Notes to 'Dsf'
SILVER BAY 2014-1: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba2 Rating on Cl. E Certs
SILVER SPRING: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating on Class E Notes

SOLARCITY LMC III: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class B Notes
STEELE CREEK 2014-1: Moody's Rates 2 Note Classes '(P)Ba3'
STF FIRST MORTGAGE: Moody's Lowers Rating on 2007-A Notes to Caa2
STONE TOWER V: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes to 'B+'
TICP CLO II: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating on $4.8MM Class E Notes

TRINITAS CLO II: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
TROPIC CDO IV: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. A-3L Notes to Caa1
UNITED AUTO 2014-1: DBRS Finalizes BB Rating on Class E Notes
UNITED AUTO 2014-1: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
US CAPITAL FUNDING: Moody's Confirms B2 Rating on Series A Unit

VENTURE IX CDO: Moody's Raises Rating on Class E Notes to Ba3
VOYA CLO 2014-3: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $8.75MM Cl. E Notes
WACHOVIA BANK 2004-C15: Moody's Cuts Rating on Cl. J Certs to C
WATERFRONT CLO 2007-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
WFRBS COMMERCIAL 2012-C8: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. G Notes

WHITEHORSE IX: Moody's Rates $8.25MM Class F Notes 'B2'

* Moody's Takes Action on $144MM of Alt-A RMBS Issued in 2005
* Moody's Takes Action on $122-Mil. of RMBS Issued 2004 to 2005
* Moody's Takes Action on $48MM of Alt-A RMBS Issued 2003-2004
* Moody's Raises Ratings on $31.5MM of RMBS Issued by Two Issuers
* Moody's Takes Action on $5.9MM of Prime Jumbo RMBS by 2 Issuers

* Moody's Takes Action on 16 Tranches on $336MM of RMBS
* S&P Takes Actions on 10 U.S. Synthetic CDO Deals After Review
* S&P Raises 11 Rating on 4 CDO Transactions
* S&P Withdraws Ratings on 53 Classes From 19 CDO Transactions


                             *********

AGATE BAY 2014-1: S&P Assigns BB+ Rating on Class B-4 Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to Agate
Bay Mortgage Trust 2014-1's $259.637 million mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2014-1.

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

The ratings reflect:

   -- The high-quality collateral included in the pool, as
      described in the Collateral Summary section.

   -- The transaction participants associated with the transaction
      in conjunction with each participant's role.

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Agate Bay Mortgage Trust 2013-1

Class       Rating             Amount          Interest
                             (mil. $)          rate (%)
1-A         AAA (sf)           151.92              4.00
1-AIO       AAA (sf)         Notional              (ii)
1-A1        AAA (sf)           151.92              1.00
1-A2        AAA (sf)           151.92              1.50
1-A3        AAA (sf)           151.92              2.00
1-A4        AAA (sf)           151.92              2.50
1-A5        AAA (sf)           151.92              3.00
1-A6        AAA (sf)           151.92              3.50
1-A7        AAA (sf)            75.96              4.50
1-A8        AAA (sf)            75.96              5.00
1-A9        AAA (sf)            75.96              5.50
1-A10       AAA (sf)            75.96              6.00
1-A11       AAA (sf)           146.90              4.00
1-A12       AAA (sf)             5.02              4.00
1-A13       AAA (sf)           146.90              3.50
1-A14       AAA (sf)             5.02              3.50
1-AIO1      AAA (sf)         Notional              3.00
1-AIO2      AAA (sf)         Notional              2.50
1-AIO3      AAA (sf)         Notional              2.00
1-AIO4      AAA (sf)         Notional              1.50
1-AIO5      AAA (sf)         Notional              1.00
1-AIO6      AAA (sf)         Notional              0.50
2-A         AAA (sf)            99.15              3.50
2-AIO       AAA (sf)         Notional             (iii)
2-A1        AAA (sf)            99.15              1.00
2-A2        AAA (sf)            99.15              1.50
2-A3        AAA (sf)            99.15              2.00
2-A4        AAA (sf)            99.15              2.50
2-A5        AAA (sf)            99.15              3.00
2-A6        AAA (sf)            49.57              4.00
2-A7        AAA (sf)            49.57              4.50
2-A8        AAA (sf)            49.57              5.00
2-A9        AAA (sf)            49.57              5.50
2-A10       AAA (sf)            49.57              6.00
2-A11       AAA (sf)            95.87              3.50
2-A12       AAA (sf)             3.28              3.50
2-AIO1      AAA (sf)         Notional              2.50
2-AIO2      AAA (sf)         Notional              2.00
2-AIO3      AAA (sf)         Notional              1.50
2-AIO4      AAA (sf)         Notional              1.00
2-AIO5      AAA (sf)         Notional              0.50
B-1         AA+ (sf)             2.28           Net WAC
B-2         A (sf)               1.87           Net WAC
B-3         BBB (sf)             1.47           Net WAC
B-4         BB+ (sf)             2.95           Net WAC
B-5         NR                   8.03           Net WAC

  (i) The certificates are subject to a net WAC cap.
(ii) Equal to the excess, if any, of the net WAC for group 1 over
      4.00%.
(iii) Equal to the excess, if any, of the net WAC for group 2 over
      3.50%.
  NR - Not rated.
  WAC - Weighted average coupon.


ALESCO PREFERRED VI: Moody's Confirms Ca Rating on 3 Note Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by ALESCO Preferred Funding VI, Ltd.:

  $23,000,000 Class B-1 Deferrable Third Priority Senior Secured
  Floating Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of
  $24,665,325.84, including deferred interest), Upgraded to
  B2 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Caa1 (sf) Placed Under
  Review for Possible Upgrade

  $12,000,000 Class B-2 Deferrable Third Priority Senior Secured
  Fixed/Floating Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of
  $15,277,309.41, including deferred interest), Upgraded to
  B2 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Caa1 (sf) Placed Under
  Review for Possible Upgrade

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

  $365,000,000 Class A-1 First Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of $216,319,600.63),
  Confirmed at Aa3 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Aa3 (sf)
  Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $50,000,000 Class A-2 Second Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2035, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on June
  26, 2014 Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $20,000,000 Class A-3 Second Priority Senior Secured
  Fixed/Floating Rate Notes Due 2035, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf);
  previously on June 26, 2014 Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for
  Possible Upgrade

  $57,500,000 Class C-1 Deferrable Mezzanine Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of $62,732,287.14,
  including deferred interest), Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously
  on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
  Upgrade

  $46,000,000 Class C-2 Deferrable Mezzanine Secured
  Fixed/Floating Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of
  $51,368,656.80, including deferred interest), Confirmed at
  Ca (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under
  Review for Possible Upgrade

  $10,000,000 Class C-3 Deferrable Mezzanine Secured
  Fixed/Floating Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of
  $12,946,158.61, including deferred interest), Confirmed at
  Ca(sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review
  for Possible Upgrade

  $27,000,000 Class C-4 Deferrable Mezzanine Secured Fixed Rate
  Notes Due 2035 (current balance of $34,954,628.27, including
  deferred interest), Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on June
  26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $17,000,000 Class D-1 Deferrable Subordinate Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of $19,694,176.27,
  including deferred interest), Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously
  on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
  Upgrade

  $3,000,000 Class D-2 Deferrable Subordinate Secured
  Fixed/Floating Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of
  $4,117,839.39, including deferred interest), Confirmed at Ca
  (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review
  for Possible Upgrade

ALESCO Preferred Funding VI, Ltd., issued in December 2004, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank and
insurance trust preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions on the Class B-1 and Class B-2 (Class B) notes
are primarily a result of updates to Moody's TruPS CDOs
methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to Rating TruPS
CDOs" published in June 2014.

The Class B notes have benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology, including (1) removing the current 25% macro
default probability stress for bank and insurance TruPS; (2)
expanding the default timing profiles from one to six probability-
weighted scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption profile for
bank and insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss distribution generated
by Moody's CDOROM for deals that do not permit reinvestment; (5)
giving full par credit to deferring bank TruPS that meet certain
criteria; and (6) raising the assumed recovery rate for insurance
TruPS.

In addition, Moody's confirmed the ratings on the Class A, Class C
and Class D notes due to the transaction's stable performance. As
such, the expected losses on the Class A, Class C and Class D
notes are still commensurate with their current rating levels.

The Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately 1.1% or $1.5
million since October 2013, using the diversion of excess interest
proceeds. Based on the trustee's June 2014 report, the over-
collateralization ratio of the Class A notes was 136.7% (limit
130.0%), versus 136.0% in October 2013, and that of the Class D
notes, 76.6% (limit 102.8%), versus 76.3% in October 2013. The
Class A-1 notes will continue to benefit from the diversion of
excess interest due to the Class D overcollateralization failure
and the use of proceeds from redemptions of any assets in the
collateral pool.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class A
notes, Class B notes, Class C notes and Class D notes announced on
June 26, 2014. At that time, Moody's had placed the ratings on
review for upgrade as a result of the aforementioned methodology
updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par (after
treating deferring securities as performing if they meet certain
criteria) of $393.7 million, defaulted/deferring par of $53.7
million, a weighted average default probability of 13.2% (implying
a WARF of 1247), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default
of 10%. In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly
models, qualitative factors are part of rating committee
considerations. Moody's considers the structural protections in
the transaction, the risk of an event of default, recent deal
performance under current market conditions, the legal environment
and specific documentation features. All information available to
rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from
other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments
regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on the
transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector and on the US insurance sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains TruPS issued by small to medium
sized U.S. community banks and insurance companies that Moody's
does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank
TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM),
an econometric model developed by Moody's KMV, to derive credit
scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank
obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014 financial data. For
insurance TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's relies on
the assessment of its Insurance team, based on the credit analysis
of the underlying insurance firms' annual statutory financial
reports.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 750)

Class A-1: +2

Class A-2: +3

Class A-3: +3

Class B-1: +3

Class B-2: +3

Class C-1: 0

Class C-2: 0

Class C-3: 0

Class C-4: 0

Class D-1: 0

Class D-2: 0

Combo: 0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1798)

Class A-1: -1

Class A-2: -2

Class A-3: -2

Class B-1: -3

Class B-2: -3

Class C-1: 0

Class C-2: 0

Class C-3: 0

Class C-4: 0

Class D-1: 0

Class D-2: 0

Combo: 0


ALM XI: Moody's Assigns '(P)Ba3' Rating on $35.7MM Class D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to six
classes of notes to be issued by ALM XI, Ltd.

$348,750,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$54,250,000 Class A-2a Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-2a Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class A-2b Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-2b Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$25,250,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$34,750,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$35,750,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

The Class A-1 Notes, the Class A-2a Notes, the Class A-2b Notes,
the Class B Notes, the Class C Notes and the Class D 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.

ALM XI 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 portfolio is expected to be approximately 75%
ramped as of the closing date.

Apollo Credit Management (CLO) 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $550,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2950

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.45%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 49.5%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.0 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
February 2014.

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 2950 to 3393)

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2950 to 3835)

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

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

Moody's V Score provides 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. The V Score applies to the entire
transaction, rather than individual tranches.


AMAC CDO: Moody's Raises Rating on Class C Notes to 'Caa1'
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of the
following notes issued by AMAC CDO Funding I:

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
A2 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. D-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013
Affirmed Ca (sf)

Cl. D-2, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013
Affirmed Ca (sf)

Moody's has also affirmed the ratings of the following notes:

Cl. E, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the ratings of six classes of notes due to a
combination of rapid amortization and stable credit quality of the
underlying collateral pool as evidenced by a lower weighted
average rating factor (WARF). Moody's has affirmed the ratings of
two classes of notes because the key transaction metrics are
commensurate with the existing ratings. The rating actions are the
result of Moody's on-going surveillance of commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO CLO) transactions.


AMAC CDO Funding I is a static cash transaction backed by a
portfolio of: i) whole loans and senior participations (94.3% of
the pool balance); ii) B-Notes (3.8%); and iii) mezzanine loan
interests (1.9%). As of the June 18, 2014 trustee report, the
aggregate note balance of the transaction, including preferred
shares, has decreased to $291.5 million from $400.0 million at
issuance, with the paydown directed to the senior most outstanding
class of notes, as a result of the combination of regular
amortization, and interest proceeds re-diverted as principal due
to failure of certain par value tests.

There are no assets that are listed as defaulted securities as of
the June 18, 2014 trustee report.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of the
expected loss in CRE CDO transactions: the 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 3749,
compared to 4009 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 and 1.0% compared to 0.9% at last
review; A1-A3 and 13.2% compared to 0.0% at last review; Baa1-Baa3
and 11.6% compared to 7.3% at last review; Ba1-Ba3 and 5.0%
compared to 6.0% at last review; B1-B3 and 33.7% compared to 25.8%
at last review; and Caa1-C and 48.7% compared to 60.0% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.7 years, compared to 2.9 years at last
review. The current WAL is based on the assumption about
extensions on the underlying collateral assets.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 54.7%, compared to 55.2% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 27.8%, compared to 29.3% 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 March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes 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 notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the
rated notes, 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 notes are particularly sensitive
to changes in the recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments. Increasing the recovery rates by 10% would
result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of
0 to +4 notches (e.g., one notch up implies a ratings movement of
Ba1 to Baa3). Decreasing the recovery rates by 10% would result in
an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of 0 to -3
notches (e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3
to Ba1).

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.


APIDOS CLO XVIII: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $8MM Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by Apidos CLO XVIII.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$449,800,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
  2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
  Aaa (sf)

$71,350,000 Class A-2a Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-2a Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2
(sf)

$23,000,000 Class A-2b Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-2b Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$31,300,000 Class B Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

$42,700,000 Class C Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

$39,850,000 Class D Junior Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

$8,000,000 Class E Junior Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned 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."

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected losses
posed to noteholders. The 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.

Apidos XVIII 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 70% ramped as of the closing date.

CVC Credit Partners, 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 and credit improved assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer has issued 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $714,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2520

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.65%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

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
February 2014.

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 2520 to 2898)

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: 0

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2520 to 3276)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2a Notes: -4

Class A-2b Notes: -4

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -3

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

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.


ARES XXII: Moody's Affirms 'Ba1' Rating on $11MM Class C Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Ares XXII CLO, Ltd.:

$26,500,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Notes Due 2019, Upgraded to
Aaa (sf); previously on September 8, 2011 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

$19,000,000 Class A-3 Floating Rate Notes Due 2019, Upgraded to
Aa1 (sf); previously on September 8, 2011 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

$18,000,000 Class B Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2019,
Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on September 8, 2011 Upgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

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

$238,500,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes Due 2019 (current
outstanding balance $238,114,033), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously
on August 30, 2007 Assigned Aaa (sf)

$11,000,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2019,
Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on September 8, 2011 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

$11,000,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2019,
Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on September 8, 2011 Upgraded to
Ba3 (sf)

Ares XXII CLO, Ltd., issued in August 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ends in
October 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
October 2014 and credit improvement of the underlying portfolio.
Based on the trustee's July 2014 report, the weighted average
rating factor is currently 2302 compared to 2569 in the last
rating action. The senior tranches in the deal have also benefited
from a shortening of the portfolio's weighted average life since
the last rating action.

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
February 2014.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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% (1943)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class A-3: +1

Class B: +2

Class C: +2

Class D: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2914)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: -1

Class A-3: -3

Class B: -2

Class C: -1

Class D: 0

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 February 2014.

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 of $ 337.14 million, no defaulted par, a weighted average
default probability of 14.74% (implying a WARF of 2429), a
weighted average recovery rate upon default of 50.39%, a diversity
score of 54 and a weighted average spread of 2.96%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for securities as published in "Moody's Approach to
Rating SF CDOs". In some cases, alternative recovery assumptions
may be considered based on the specifics of the analysis of the
transaction. In each case, historical and market performance and
the collateral manager's latitude for trading the collateral are
also factors.


ARES XXXI: Fitch to Assign 'BBsf' Rating to Class D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to assign the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to Ares XXXI CLO Ltd./LLC:

-- $759,900,000 class A-1 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $136,900,000 class A-2 notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $75,700,000 class B notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $46,250,000 class C notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $57,500,000 class D notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not expect to rate the subordinated notes.

Transaction Summary

Ares XXXI CLO Ltd. and Ares XXXI CLO LLC (together, Ares XXXI, or
the issuer) comprise an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) that will be managed by Ares CLO Management XXXI,
L.P., a wholly owned subsidiary of Ares Management LLC (Ares
Management). Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and
subordinated notes will be used to purchase a portfolio of
approximately $1.25 billion of primarily senior-secured leveraged
loans. The CLO will have a four-year reinvestment period and a
two-year non-call period.

Key Rating Drivers

Sufficient Credit Enhancement: Credit enhancement (CE) available
to the notes, in addition to excess spread, is sufficient to
protect against portfolio default and recovery rate projections in
the respective rating stress scenarios. The level of CE for each
class of notes is above the average CE for notes in the same
respective rating categories in recent CLO issuances.
'B' Asset Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative
portfolio is approximately 'B', which is comparable to recent
CLOs. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote relatively
weak credit quality; however, in Fitch Ratings' opinion, each
class of rated notes is projected to perform with sufficient
robustness against default rates commensurate with its applicable
rating stress.

Strong Recovery Expectations: The indicative portfolio consists of
96.1% first-lien senior-secured loans. Approximately 89.1% of the
indicative portfolio has either strong recovery prospects or a
Fitch-assigned recovery rating of 'RR2' or higher, resulting in a
base case recovery assumption of 76.3%. In determining the notes'
ratings, Fitch stressed the indicative portfolio by assuming a
higher portfolio concentration of assets with lower recovery
prospects and further reduced recovery assumptions for higher
rating stress assumptions. For example, the analysis of the class
A-1 notes assumed a 36.9% recovery rate in Fitch's 'AAAsf'
scenario.

Consistent Portfolio Parameters: The concentration limitations and
collateral quality test levels are within the range of limits set
in the majority of recent CLOs. Fitch addressed the impact of the
most prominent risk-presenting concentration allowances in the
Fitch stressed portfolio analysis.

Rating Sensitivities

Fitch evaluated the structure's sensitivity to the potential
variability of key model assumptions, including decreases in
recovery rates and increases in default rates or correlation.
Fitch expects the class A-1 and class A-2 notes to remain
investment grade, while classes B, C, and D are generally expected
to remain within two rating categories, even under the most
extreme sensitivity scenarios. Results under these sensitivity
scenarios ranged between 'AA-sf' and 'AAAsf' for the class A-1
notes, between 'BBBsf' and 'AAAsf' for the class A-2 notes,
between 'BBsf' and 'AA+sf' for the class B notes, between 'B-sf'
and 'AA-sf' for the class C notes, and between a level below
'CCCsf' and 'BBB+sf' for the class D notes. The results of these
scenarios remain consistent with the assigned ratings.
The expected ratings are based on information provided to Fitch as
of July 24, 2014. Sources of information used to assess these
ratings were provided by the arranger, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
and the public domain.


BAMLL COMMERCIAL 2014-ICTS: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to BAMLL
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-ICTS's $188.0 million
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by a $188.0 million commercial
mortgage loan secured by the fee interest in the InterContinental
New York Times Square, a 607-room, 36-story, full-service hotel in
New York City.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's historical and
projected performance, the sponsors' and manager's experience, the
trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's terms, and the
transaction's structure.  Standard & Poor's determined that the
loan has a 75.4% beginning and ending loan-to-value ratio, based
on Standard & Poor's value, which is 50.2% lower than the
appraised value.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

BAMLL Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-ICTS

Class         Rating                    Amount
                                      (mil. $)
A             AAA (sf)                   74.82
X-CP          BBB- (sf)              151.65(i)
X-EXT         BBB- (sf)              151.65(i)
B             AA- (sf)                   28.19
C             A- (sf)                    20.95
D             BBB- (sf)                  27.69
E             BB- (sf)                   36.35

(i) Notional balance.  The aggregate principal distributions and
     realized losses allocated to the class A, B, C, and D
     certificates will reduce the class X-CP and X-EXT
     certificates' notional amount.


BANC OF AMERICA 2005-4: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Class K Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 19 classes of Banc of America
Commercial Mortgage Inc. (BACM) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2005-4.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations reflect sufficient credit enhancement and
continued stable performance of the pool since Fitch's last rating
action. Fitch modeled losses of 10.3% of the remaining pool;
expected losses on the original pool balance total 10.1%,
including $53 million (3.3% of the original pool balance) in
realized losses to date. Fitch has designated 39 loans (33.8%) as
Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes 16 specially serviced
assets (10%). Of the remaining pool, 79% matures in 2015, most of
which (52%) matures between May and July 2015.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the Capistrano I
Office Buildings loan (2.6% of the pool), which is secured by an
188,040 square foot (sf) office building located in San Juan
Capistrano, CA. The largest three tenants are Los Golondrinas Mex.
Food/Arturo Galindo Jr. (4%) lease expiration January 2019; Semi
Conductor Technology Associates Inc. (3%) expiration December
2017; and The Effect (3%) expiration December 2014. No other
tenant represents more than 2% of the total net rentable area
(NRA) at the property. Per the borrower, property performance has
been affected by on-going freeway and bridge construction in the
area in addition to lower occupancy and declining base rents. The
borrower continues to actively market the vacancies; however, per
the borrower, there are no firm prospects. The year-end (YE) 2013
net operating income (NOI) declined 8% from YE 2012 and 44% since
issuance. There is approximately 21% lease rollover in 2014 and
23% in 2015. Although property occupancy has improved slightly to
70% compared to 66% at Fitch's last review, average rent declined
to $14 sf from $16 sf at last review; occupancy and rents remain
below market. Per REIS as of 1Q 2014, the Southern Orange County
submarket vacancy is 17.8% with asking rent $28.65sf. The loan
remains current.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the specially-
serviced Prairie Stone Commons loan (1.2%), which is secured by a
101,615 sf office property located in Hoffman Estates, IL, built
in 1992. The loan transferred to special servicing in 2009 due to
a payment default. As of May 2014, the property is 38% occupied. A
summary judgment was received at the June 2014 hearing and a sale
date has been set for July 31st. The special servicer was
scheduled to attend a mandatory court ordered settlement
conference in the Guaranty lawsuit.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is the specially-
serviced Friar's Branch Crossing (0.9%), which is a 110,027 SF
office/retail property located in Chattanooga, TN. The asset was
acquired via foreclosure in September 2011 and is currently real
estate owned (REO). As of June 2014, the property is 58% occupied.
The leasing broker is NAI Charter Real Estate Corporation. Per the
special servicer, the asset is currently being marketed by a loan
sale advisor with several other loan and REO assets.

Rating Sensitivity

Rating Outlooks on classes A-5A through A-1A and B remain Stable
due to sufficient credit enhancement and continued paydown of the
classes. The revision of class A-J to Positive from Stable
reflects the expected increases in credit enhancement due to
additional defeasance, expected paydown and upcoming loan
maturities in 2015. With continued stable pool performance and
loss expectations, and upgrade to class A-J is likely.

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

-- $97.1 million class A-J at 'BBBsf', Outlook to Positive from
    Stable;

-- $15.9 million class C at 'Bsf', Outlook to Stable from
    Negative;

-- $29.7 million class D at 'CCCsf', RE 60%.

Fitch affirms the following classes:

-- $485.9 million class A-5A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $125.7 million class A3 and A4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $7.3 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $69.4 million class A-5B at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $80.5 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $31.7 million class B at 'BBsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $17.8 million class E at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $19.8 million class F at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $17.8 million class G at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $23.8 million class H at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $7.9 million class J at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $2.6 million 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%.

Classes A-1 and A-2 are paid in full. Fitch does not rate the
class P certificates. Fitch previously withdrew the ratings on the
interest-only class XP and XC certificates.


BANC OF AMERICA 2007-1: Fitch Cuts Rating on Cl. A-J Certs to CC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings downgrades one distressed class and affirms 20
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Banc
of America Commercial Mortgage Trust (BACM), series 2007-1.

Key Rating Drivers

The downgrade to class A-J reflects the decrease in credit
enhancement to distressed classes from realized losses coupled
with the high level of Fitch modeled losses across the remaining
pool.  The Fitch modeled losses includes assumed losses on loans
in special servicing and on performing loans with declines in
performance indicative of a higher probability of default.  Fitch
modeled losses of 25.3% of the remaining pool.  Expected losses on
the original pool balance total 18.1% including $90.6 million
(2.9% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.
Fitch has designated 54 loans (55.1%) as Fitch Loans of Concern,
which includes the two specially serviced assets (15.1%) and
underperforming and/or highly leveraged assets.

Rating Sensitivities

The Negative Outlooks reflect the uncertainty regarding final
recoveries upon disposition of specially serviced assets coupled
with the pool's high percentage of Fitch Loans of Concern.  Upon
liquidation of the specially serviced assets, the Outlook on the
super senior classes is expected to remain Stable.  If losses are
significantly higher than expected, or if interest shortfalls push
further up the capital structure, the ratings and Outlooks of the
senior classes are likely to be re-evaluated.

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has decreased 39.8% to $1.89 billion from $3.15
billion at issuance.  As of July 2014, there are cumulative
interest shortfalls in the amount of $38.6 million, affecting
classes A-J through Q.

The largest contributor to modeled loss is the largest specially
serviced loan (11.6% of the pool balance), which is the real
estate owned (REO) Solana office complex located in Westlake, TX.
The pari passu loan was transferred to special servicing in March
2009 for imminent default, was modified and is now REO.  The
reported appraisal value from March 2014 indicates a value
significantly below the loan amount and the amount reported in
2013.

The second largest contributor to modeled loss is the Skyline
Portfolio (14.4% of the pool, inclusive of the A and B note).  The
portfolio, which consists of eight office buildings totaling 2.64
million square feet (sf) in Falls Church, VA, transferred to
special servicing in March 2012 for imminent default.  The
sponsor, Vornado, cited the Base Realignment and Closure statute
(BRAC), as contributing to recent and upcoming vacancies at the
properties.  The pari passu loan was modified in October 2013 with
the $271.2 million pari passu portion split into a $140 million A-
note and a $131.2 million B-note.  The loan maturity was extended
to Feb. 2022 with a one-year extension option if certain
performance metrics are attained.  The loan continues to perform
under the terms of the modification.

The third largest contributor to modeled loss is the StratREAL
Industrial Portfolio I loan (3.5% of the pool).  The note was sold
in late 2013 via a purchase option.  Proceeds were applied to
outstanding receivables and pay down the loan.  The remaining
portion is expected to pass through as a loss to the trust.

Fitch downgrades the following classes:

   -- $259.5 million class A-J to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf'; RE 25%.

Fitch also affirms the following classes:

   -- $39.7 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $30.1 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $698.7 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $271.5 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $214.5 million class A-MFX at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $60 million class A-MFL at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $27.5 million class B at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $35.4 million class C at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $27.5 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $39.3 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $39.3 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $35.4 million class G at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $35.4 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%.

The $39.1 million class J remains at 'Dsf'; RE 0% due to realized
losses.  The fully depleted classes K, L, M, N, O and P remain at
'Dsf'; RE 0% due to realized losses.

Classes A-1 and A-2 are paid in full.  Fitch does not rate the
fully depleted class Q.  Fitch previously withdrew the rating on
the interest-only class XW and the $40 million class A-MFX2.


BEAR STEARNS 2005-PWR8: Moody's Affirms C Rating on CL. G Secs.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of three
classes and affirmed the ratings of seven classes and of Bear
Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, Series 2005-PWR8 as
follows:

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4FL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed
A3 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on Classes A-J, B and C were upgraded primarily due to
an increase in credit support since Moody's last review, resulting
from 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 pool has paid down by 8% since Moody's last review.
In addition, loans constituting 77% of the pool that have defeased
or have debt yields exceeding 10% and are scheduled to mature
within the next 12 months.

The ratings on Class A-4 and A-4F 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 D through G 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 (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of the
referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.1% of the
current balance compared to 2.8% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 6.3% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 6.2% 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 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 27 compared to 21 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the July 11, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 30% to $1.2 billion
from $1.8 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 159 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 13% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting
33% of the pool. Nineteen loans, constituting 18% of the pool,
have defeased and are secured by US government securities.

Forty-nine loans, constituting 17% 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.

Seventeen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $72.2 million (for an average loss
severity of 52%). Four loans, constituting 2% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. Moody's estimates an aggregate
$14.9 million loss for specially serviced loans (63% expected loss
on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for seven poorly
performing loans, constituting 2% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $4.0 million (a 20% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 92% of the
pool and full year 2013 operating results for 97% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 84% compared to 86% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured 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 9.2%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.44X and 1.23X,
respectively, compared to 1.48X and 1.24X 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 21% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the One MetroTech Center Loan ($161.9 million --
13% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 933,011 square foot,
23-story Class A office property with a 270 car garage built on
1.6 acres of land in Brooklyn, New York. The office occupancy was
95% in January 2014, same as at last review. Moody's current LTV
and stressed DSCR are 89% and 1.06X, respectively, compared to 87%
and 1.09X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Park Place Loan ($50.9 million --
4% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 351,955 square foot
office complex in Florham Park, New Jersey. The property was 85%
leased as of December 2013 compared to 96% as of December 2012.
Moody's current LTV and stressed DSCR are 87% and 1.18X,
respectively, compared to 79% and 1.30X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Ballston Office Center Loan ($43.1
million -- 4% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 178,452
square foot, 10-story office building located in Arlington,
Virginia. The property is 91% leased to the US Coast Guard through
June 2016. Moody's current LTV and stressed DSCR are 103% and
0.95X respectively, compared to 104% and 0.93X at last review.


BEAR STEARNS 2007-TOP28: Fitch Cuts Rating on Cl. D Secs to CCC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded one class and affirmed 18 classes of
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, series 2007-
TOP28 (BSCMSI 2007-TOP28).

Key Rating Drivers

The downgrade is due to an increase in expected losses on the
specially serviced loans combined with performance deterioration
on several performing loans.  Fitch modeled losses of 6.0% of the
remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total
6.9%, including $31.5 million (1.8% of the original pool balance)
in realized losses to date.  Fitch has designated 51 loans (31.4%)
as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes two specially serviced
assets (4.6%).

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 15% to $1.5 billion from
$1.76 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, two loans
(3.6% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes H through P.

Over 50% of the pool consists of retail properties, including
eight of the Top 15 loans and the largest loan in the pool,
representing 11.4% of the collateral.  While updated rent rolls
were provided by the servicer, recent sales information was
available on only two of the eight retail properties in the top
15.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the Cole Retail
Portfolio (2.1% of the pool), which is secured by six single-
tenant retail properties located in CA, IL, RI, TX and NJ (2).
The loan is on the servicer watchlist due to decreased DSCR as of
year-end 2013.  The servicer reported DSCR dropped to 0.81x as of
year-end 2013 from 1.59x as of year-end 2012.  Current rent rolls
or tenant sales information was not available for the properties.
Fitch determined the property located in Houston, TX is dark, with
the former tenant, Academy Sports, on a lease through May 2015.
The Rite Aid in Mantua, NJ was under a lease scheduled to expire
in June 2014.  Per Rite Aid's website, the location is still open.

The second largest contributor to expected losses is the
specially-serviced RiverCenter I & II loan (3.7% of the pool),
which is secured by a leasehold interest in two adjacent office
buildings totaling 550,000 sf.  The loan was transferred to the
special servicer after the borrower indicated they would not be
able to repay the loan at maturity in June 2014.  The properties,
which are located outside Cincinnati in Covington, KY, have seen
an overall decline in performance over the last few years.  As of
December 2013 occupancy was reported at 70%, down from 88% at
year-end 2012.  Physical occupancy is estimated to be lower, at
approximately 50%, based on a Cincinnati Business Journal article
from 2011 that reported OmniCare, the primary tenant with 18% of
the net rentable area (NRA), is still making lease payments but
has fully vacated the building.  The OmniCare lease expires in
February 2016.  Further, the second largest tenant (10% of NRA)
recently renewed its lease at 15% lower than its current rent.
Market conditions in the region remain challenged, with submarket
Class B/C vacancy reported at 17.4% per REIS.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the Pavilions
at Hartman Heritage loan (1.6%), which is secured by a 220,000 sf
retail property, built in 2003, located in Independence, MO, in
the Kansas City MSA.  As of year-end 2013 occupancy was 65.1%,
down from 70% at year-end 2012, and significantly lower than the
92% occupancy at origination.  The DSCR as of year-end 2013 was
1.25x, flat with the 1.25x reported at year-end 2012.  The
interest only loan matures in August 2017.  While the property saw
an over 60% improvement in property cash flow between year-end
2012 and 2011, the property is still performing significantly
below expectations at issuance when occupancy was 92% and the DSCR
was 2.06x.

Rating Sensitivities

The ratings on the senior classes A-3 through A-J are expected to
remain stable as these classes will benefit from increased credit
enhancement as the pool continues to pay down.  The Rating Outlook
on Class B is revised to Negative from Stable due to the increase
in expected losses. The Rating Outlook on Class C remains Negative
as this class is subject to downgrade should performance declines
continue.  The distressed classes are subject to further downgrade
if realized losses exceed current expectations.

Fitch downgrades the following class and revises Recovery
Estimates (REs) as indicated:

   -- $28.6 million class D to 'CCCsf' from 'Bsf'; RE 60%.

Fitch affirms the following classes:

   -- $43.3 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $51.4 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $841.7 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $117.2 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $176.1 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $114.5 million class A-J at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $30.8 million class B at 'BBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
      Stable;
   -- $15.4 million class C at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $22 million class E at 'CCCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $17.6 million class F at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $19.8 million class G at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $15.4 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $2.2 million class J at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $1.4 million 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%.

The class A-1 and A-2 certificates have paid in full. Fitch does
not rate the class P certificates.  Fitch previously withdrew the
ratings on the interest-only class X-1 and X-2 certificates.


BHMS 2014-ATLS: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB+ Rating on Class D-FL Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to BHMS 2014-ATLS Mortgage Trust's $1.0 billion commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates series 2014-ATLS.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by a first-lien mortgage on the
borrowers' fee interest in the Atlantis Resort, totaling 2,917
guestrooms, in Paradise Island, Bahamas.  The mortgage loan is
further secured by pledges of equity interests in several
additional borrowers.  The $1.0 billion commercial mortgage loan
is split into two floating-rate components totaling $350.0 million
and two fixed-rate components totaling $650.0 million.  The
floating-rate components have a three-year initial term and a
fully extended maturity at seven years.  The fixed-rate components
have a seven-year term.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Aug. 4,
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 collateral's
historical and projected performance, the sponsor's and manager's
experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's terms, and
the transaction's structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

BHMS 2014-ATLS Mortgage Trust

Class                  Rating(i)         Amount ($)
A-FX                   NR               301,521,000
X-CPFX                 NR           188,829,000(ii)
X-EXTFX                NR           188,829,000(ii)
B-FX                   NR                59,511,000
C-FX                   NR                40,018,000
D-FX                   BB+ (sf)          67,758,000
E-FX                   BB- (sf)          81,533,000
F-FX                   B- (sf)           99,659,000
A-FL                   NR               162,357,000
X-CPFL                 NR           101,236,000(ii)
X-EXTFL                NR           101,236,000(ii)
B-FL                   NR                32,044,000
C-FL                   NR                21,549,000
D-FL                   BB+ (sf)          36,485,000
E-FL                   BB- (sf)          43,901,000
F-FL                   B- (sf)           53,664,000

  (i) The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
      institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the
      Securities Act of 1933.
(ii) The class X-CPFX, X-CPFL, X-EXTFX, and X-EXTFL certificate
      amounts will be reduced by the aggregate principal
      distributions and realized losses allocated to a portion of
      the class A certificates.
   NR-Not rated.


BIRCHWOOD PARK: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating on 2 Note Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to nine
classes of notes to be issued by Birchwood Park CLO, Ltd.
Moody's rating action is as follows:

$375,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$54,600,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$21,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$22,400,000 Class C-1 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class C-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class C-2 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class C-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$26,000,000 Class D-1 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class D-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class D-2 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class D-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$35,900,000 Class E-1 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class E-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$2,500,000 Class E-2 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class E-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

The Class A Notes, the Class B-1 Notes, the Class B-2 Notes, the
Class C-1 Notes, the Class C-2 Notes, the Class D-1 Notes, the
Class D-2 Notes, the Class E-1 Notes and the Class E-2 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.

Birchwood Park CLO 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, cash, and eligible
investments, and up to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans. The Issuer's portfolio is expected
to be at least 75% ramped as of the closing date and the Issuer's
documents are also expected to require that the portfolio will be
100% ramped within three months thereafter.

GSO/Blackstone Debt Funds 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2800

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.60%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47%

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
February 2014.

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 2800 to 3220)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -1

Class B-2 Notes: -1

Class C-1 Notes: -2

Class C-2 Notes: -2

Class D-1 Notes: -1

Class D-2 Notes: -1

Class E-1 Notes: -1

Class E-2 Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2800 to 3640)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-2 Notes: -3

Class C-1 Notes: -3

Class C-2 Notes: -3

Class D-1 Notes: -2

Class D-2 Notes: -2

Class E-1 Notes: -1

Class E-2 Notes: -1

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

Moody's V Score provides 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. The V Score applies to the entire
transaction, rather than individual tranches.


BRIDGEPORT CLO II: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class C Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Bridgeport CLO II Ltd:

$390,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021
(current outstanding balance $386,363,301.14), Upgraded to Aaa
(sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Confirmed at Aa1 (sf)

$21,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Confirmed at
A1 (sf)

$26,000,000 Class B Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes Due
2021, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

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

$22,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes Due
2021, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

$19,000,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes Due
2021 (current outstanding balance $14,319,673.80), Affirmed Ba3
(sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Bridgeport CLO II Ltd., issued in June 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of senior secured
loans. The transaction's reinvestment period will end in September
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
September 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 higher weighted
average spread (WAS) and diversity levels compared to the levels
during the last rating review. Moody's modeled a WAS of 3.38% and
diversity of 80 versus levels at the last rating review of 2.67%
and 73, respectively. The senior notes in the deal have also
benefited from a shortening of the portfolio's weighted average
life. Furthermore, the transaction's reported collateral quality
and OC ratios have been stable.

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
February 2014.

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) 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.

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% (2127)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: +1

Class B: +3

Class C: +1

Class D: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3191)

Class A-1: -1

Class A-2: -1

Class B: -2

Class C: -1

Class D: 0

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 February 2014.

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 $489.7 million, defaulted
par of $0.01 million, a weighted average default probability of
19.0% (implying a WARF of 2659), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 49.68%, a diversity score of 80 and a weighted
average spread of 3.38%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for CLO securities as published in "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs". In some cases, alternative recovery
assumptions may be considered based on the specifics of the
analysis of the CLO transaction. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


CAPITAL TRUST 2004-1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class E Notes to CC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on classes
D and E from Capital Trust Re CDO 2004-1 Ltd., a commercial real
estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction.

The downgrades reflect interest shortfalls to the classes.  S&P
downgraded the non-deferrable class D to 'D (sf)' because of
interest shortfalls.  S&P lowered its rating on the deferrable
class E to 'CC (sf)' to reflect the interest shortfalls that S&P
expects will continue for the foreseeable future.  The remaining
assets in the transaction do not generate sufficient interest
proceeds to pay interest due on classes D and E, so those classes
will rely on the ultimate liquidation of the collateral to repay
the outstanding interest shortfalls.

According to the July 17, 2014, trustee report, the transaction's
collateral totaled $38.0 million, while the transaction's
liabilities, including capitalized interest, totaled $245.8
million.  Classes D and E's cumulative principal balance,
including capitalized interest, was $13.0 million.

The transaction has three assets outstanding, all of which are
deemed impaired in the trustee report:

   -- Subordinate note on 1111 Marcus ($27.0 million, 71.2%);

   -- Subordinate note on Resorts International Portfolio ($10.5
      million, 27.7%); and

   -- Class G from GE Capital Commercial Mortgage Corp. 2000-1
      ($427,064, 1.1%).

RATINGS LIST

Capital Trust Re CDO 2004-1 Ltd.
                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To        From
D       140574AE4    D (sf)    CCC- (sf)
E       140574AF1    CC (sf)   CCC- (sf)


CAPMARK VII: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 6 Note Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Capmark VII-CRE Ltd.:

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

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

Cl. C, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the ratings of two classes of notes due to
rapid amortization of the underlying collateral combined with
greater than expected recovery on defaulted assets. Additionally,
the resulting collateral exhibits both an improved weighted
average rating factor (WARF) and weighted average recovery rate
(WARR). Moody's has affirmed the ratings on eight classes of notes
because the 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 CLO) transactions.

Capmark VII -- CRE Ltd. is a cash transaction whose reinvestment
period ended in August 2011. The transaction is wholly backed by a
portfolio of whole loans and senior participations. As of the July
8, 2014 trustee report, the aggregate note balance of the
transaction, including preferred shares, has decreased to $386.3
million from $1.0 billion at issuance, with the pay-down currently
directed to the senior most outstanding class of notes, as a
result of regular amortization, recoveries from defaulted assets,
and interest re-classified as principal due to the failure of
certain par value tests.

The pool contains two assets totaling $37.7 million (17.7% of the
collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted securities
as of the July 8, 2014 trustee report. While there have been
limited realized losses on the underlying collateral to date,
Moody's does expect moderate losses to occur on the defaulted
securities.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of the
expected loss in CRE CLO transactions: WARF, the weighted average
life (WAL), 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 CLO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 5,494,
compared to 6,173 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: Ba1-Ba3 (0.0% compared to 9.2% at last
review), B1-B3 (22.9% compared to 3.5% at last review) and Caa1-
Ca/C (77.1% compared to 87.3% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 3.0 years, compared to 3.1 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 54.1%, compared to 53.3% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 30.1%, compared to 30.4% 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 March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes 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 notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the
rated notes, 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 notes are particularly sensitive
to changes in the recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments. Holding all other parameters constant,
reducing the recovery rates of the collateral pool by 10% would
result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of
0 to 2 notches downward (e.g., one notch down implies a ratings
movement of Baa3 to Ba1). Holding all other parameters constant,
increasing the recovery rates of the collateral pool by 10% would
result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of
0 to 2 notches upward (e.g., one notch up implies a rating
movement from Ba1 to Baa3).

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.


CARFINANCE CAPITAL: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB-' Rating on E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to CarFinance Capital Auto Trust 2014-2's $230.50 million
automobile receivables-backed notes series 2014-2.

The note issuance is an asset-backed securities transaction backed
by subprime auto loan receivables.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of July 24,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 32.1%, 27.3%, 24.3%,
      21.8%, and 19.0% credit support for the class A, B, C, D,
      and E notes, respectively, based on stressed cash flow
      scenarios (including excess spread), which provides coverage
      of more than 2.50x, 2.25x, 1.85x, 1.60x, and 1.40x S&P's
      11.0%-12.0% expected cumulative net loss.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments made to the
      preliminary rated notes by the assumed legal final maturity
      dates under stressed cash flow modeling scenarios that S&P
      believes is appropriate for the assigned preliminary
      ratings.

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, all else being equal, its ratings on the class A
      notes would remain within one rating category of S&P's
      preliminary 'A (sf)' rating during the first year; and S&P's
      ratings on the class B, C, D, and E notes would remain
      within two rating categories of S&P's preliminary 'A- (sf)',
      'BBB (sf)', 'BB (sf)', and 'BB- (sf)' ratings, respectively,
      during the first year.  These potential rating movements are
      consistent with S&P's credit stability criteria, which
      outline the outer bound of credit deterioration as a two-
      category downgrade within the first year for 'A' through
      'BB' rated securities under the moderate stress conditions.

   -- S&P's view of the collateral characteristics of the subprime
      automobile loans securitized in this transaction including
      35% of direct loans in the pool.

   -- The transaction's cumulative net loss trigger.

   -- S&P's view of the transaction's payment and legal
      structures.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

CarFinance Capital Auto Trust 2014-2

Class     Rating        Type           Interest         Amount
                                       rate(i)     (mil. $)(i)
A         A (sf)        Senior         Fixed            191.88
B         A- (sf)       Subordinate    Fixed             15.21
C         BBB (sf)      Subordinate    Fixed              9.36
D         BB (sf)       Subordinate    Fixed              7.61
E         BB- (sf)      Subordinate    Fixed              6.44

(i) The interest rates and actual sizes of these tranches will be
     determined on the pricing date.


CARLYLE GLOBAL 2014-3: Moody's Rates Class E Notes '(P)B3'
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to nine
classes of notes to be issued by Carlyle Global Market Strategies
CLO 2014-3, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$359,400,000 Class A-1A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$155,000,000 Class A-1B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$90,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$38,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$34,000,000 Class C-1 Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class C-2 Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$42,300,000 Class D-1 Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class D-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$6,000,000 Class D-2 Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class D-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$6,700,000 Class E Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

The Class A-1A Notes, Class A-1B Notes, Class A-2 Notes, Class B
Notes, Class C-1 Notes, Class C-2 Notes, Class D-1 Notes, Class D-
2 Notes and 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.

Carlyle 2014-3 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% 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 is expected to be at least 90% ramped as
of the closing date.

Carlyle Investment Management 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 and credit improved 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $800,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2825

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.55%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.5%

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
February 2014.

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 2825 to 3249)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A Notes: -1

Class A-1B Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C-1 Notes: -1

Class C-2 Notes: -1

Class D-1 Notes: -1

Class D-2 Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2825 to 3673)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A Notes: -1

Class A-1B Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -4

Class B Notes: -4

Class C-1 Notes: -2

Class C-2 Notes: -2

Class D-1 Notes: -1

Class D-2 Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -3

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

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.


CDC COMMERCIAL 2002-FX1: Moody's Ups Rating on Cl. P Certs to Ba1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on five classes
and affirmed the ratings on three classes in CDC Commercial
Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2002-FX1 as follows:

Cl. H, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. K, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. L, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Cl. M, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. N, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Upgraded to
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. P, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. X-CL, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on Classes K through P were upgraded based primarily
on an increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 25% since Moody's last
review.

The ratings on Classes H and J 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 rating on the IO class was affirmed based on the credit
performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of the
referenced classes.

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 CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions"
published in July 2000.

Description Of Models Used

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 1 compared to 2 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 90% to $64 million
from $637 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by three mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 3% to 80% of the pool. Two loans, constituting 20% of the
pool, have defeased and are secured by US government securities.
The non-defeased remaining loan, constitutes 80% of the pool, and
is 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 has been liquidated at a loss from the pool, resulting in
a realized loss of $757,000 (for a loss severity of 38%). No loans
are currently in special servicing.

The Outlet Collection Seattle Loan ($51 million -- 79.7% of the
pool) is secured by 935,000 square foot enclosed outlet center
located in Auburn, Washington. The property was formerly known as
the Seattle SuperMall, but in 2012-13 the sponsor spent
approximately $35 million to redevelop the collateral. The
property's name was changed as part of the redevelopment and a
grand re-opening occurred in October 2013. The total mall and in-
line space are 96% and 90% leased, respectively, as of June 2014
compared to 90% and 80%, respectively, as of July 2013. The
sponsor has been able to attract national retailers to the
location since the redevelopment. Several tenants signed leases in
2013 including H&M, J.Crew, American Eagle and Nike. The loan's
anticipated repayment date (ARD) is February 11, 2015. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 77% and 1.40X, respectively, compared to 80%
and 1.35X at last review.


CENT CDO 15: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-2a, A-3, B, and C notes from Cent CDO 15 Ltd., a collateralized
loan obligation transaction managed by Columbia Management
Investment Advisers LLC.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its
ratings on the class A-1, A-2b, and D notes from the same
transaction.  In addition, S&P removed its ratings on the class A-
1, A-2a, A-2b, A-3, B, and C notes from CreditWatch, where they
were placed with positive implications on April 9, 2014.

The upgrades reflect the low amount of defaulted assets in the
portfolio as well as a decrease in 'CCC' rated assets.  In
addition, the transaction benefits from the assets' seasoning as
it gets closer to its maturity date.  Athough the cash flows point
to higher ratings for the A-3, B, C, and D notes, the transaction
is still in its reinvestment phase and the notes will not begin
amortizing until after the September 2014 payment date.

The affirmations reflect sufficient credit support available to
the notes at the current rating levels.

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 rating
actions as it deems necessary.

RATINGS LIST

Cent CDO 15 Ltd.

                     Rating     Rating
Class   Identifier   To         From
A-1     15132VAA8    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2a    15132VAC4    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2b    15132VAJ9    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3     15132VAL4    AA (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
B       15132VAE0    A (sf)     BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C       15132VAG5    BBB (sf)   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
D       15132UAA0    BB (sf)    BB (sf)


CIFC FUNDING 2014-IV: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating on Cl. F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
seven classes of notes to be issued by CIFC Funding 2014-IV, Ltd.
Moody's rating action is as follows:

$4,000,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class X Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$378,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$81,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$29,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$34,500,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$29,500,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$12,000,000 Class F Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class F Notes"), Assigned (P)B2 (sf)

The Class X Notes, the Class A Notes, the Class B Notes, the Class
C Notes, the Class D Notes, the Class E Notes and the Class F
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.

CIFC Funding 2014-IV 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. Moody's expect the portfolio to be
approximately 70% ramped as of the closing date.

CIFC 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 62

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2765

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.75%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.5%

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
February 2014.

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 2765 to 3180)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F Notes: -2

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2765 to 3595)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -4

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

Moody's V Score provides 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. The V Score applies to the entire
transaction, rather than individual tranches.


CITIGROUP MORTGAGE: Moody's Takes Action on $6.3MM RMBS From 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of six
tranches issued by two Citigroup RMBS transactions backed by Alt-A
RMBS loans.

Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2003-UP2

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 16, 2013
Downgraded to A3 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jun 29, 2012
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. PO-1, Downgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jul 16, 2013
Downgraded to A3 (sf)

Cl. S-1, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 16, 2013
Downgraded to A3 (sf)

Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2003-UP3

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 16, 2013
Downgraded to A3 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jun 29, 2012
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The 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 due to weaker collateral
performance.

The cash flow models used in prior rating actions for Citigroup
Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2003-UP2, and Citigroup Mortgage Loan
Trust, Series 2003-UP3 mistakenly did not allocate realized losses
from PO-related pools and undercollateralized amounts as losses to
the subordinate certificates, as called for in the pooling and
servicing agreements for these transactions. Moody's have revised
Moody's cash flow modeling to include the correct loss allocation,
and the rating actions reflect the change.

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 6.1% in June 2014 from 7.5% in
June 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.


COMM 2003-LNB1: Moody's Lowers Rating on Class X-1 Certs to Caa3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating of one class,
affirmed the rating of one class and downgraded the rating of one
class of COMM 2003-LNB1, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates as follows:

Cl. H, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. X-1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on P&I Class H was upgraded based primarily on an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 84% since Moody's last
review. The rating on P&I Class J was affirmed because the rating
is consistent with Moody's expected loss. The rating on IO Class
X-1 was downgraded due to the decline in the credit performance of
its reference classes resulting from principal paydowns of higher
quality reference classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 25.3% of
the current balance compared to 17.2% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.1% of the
original pooled balance compared to 5.7% 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 4 compared to 3 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 10, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $21.4
million from $846 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by five mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 43% of the pool.

No loans 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.

Eleven loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $37.8 million (for an average loss
severity of 56%). One loan, constituting 32% of the pool, is
currently in special servicing. The specially serviced loan is the
Biltmore Station Loan ($6.9 million -- 32.2% of the pool), which
is secured by a 107,277 square foot (SF) mixed use property
located in Asheville, NC. The loan was previously in special
servicing and modified in 2011 into an A/B note split. The
modification extended the loan term to May 2015. The loan
transferred to special servicing again in August 2013 due to
imminent default. Moody's estimates a significant loss for the
specially serviced loan.

Moody's received full year 2012 and 2013 operating results for
100% of the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 81%, the
same as at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans,
and specially serviced and troubled loans. 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 9.9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 0.87X and 1.40X,
respectively, compared to 1.17X and 1.36X 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 61% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Shaw's Merrimack Loan ($9.1 million -- 42.5%
of the pool), which is secured by a 65,000 SF grocery center
located in Merrimack, NH. The property is fully leased to Shaw's
Supermarket through 2024. The loan is fully amortizing. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 96% and 1.13X, respectively, compared to
98% and 1.10X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Walgreens Douglasville Loan ($2.0
million -- 9.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 15,000 SF
Walgreens located in Douglasville, GA. The property is 100% leased
to the Walgreen Co. (Senior Unsecured Rating Baa1; Outlook Stable)
through 2027. The loan is fully amortizing and matures in June
2023. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 65% and 1.59X,
respectively, compared to 67% and 1.54X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Walgreens Canton Mart Loan ($1.9
million -- 9.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 15,000 SF
Walgreens located in Jackson, MS. The property is 100% leased to
the Walgreen Co. (Senior Unsecured Rating Baa1; Outlook Stable)
through 2021. The loan is fully amortizing and matures in March
2021. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 48% and 2.15X,
respectively, compared to 51% and 2.02X at the last review.


COMM 2005-FL11: Moody's Lowers Rating on 2 Cert. Classes to 'C'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service downgraded the ratings on two Interest
Only classes of Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corp.,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2005-FL11.
Moody's rating action is as follows:

Cl. X-2-DB, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. X-3-DB, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the interest only (IO) classes reference the only
remaining loan in the pool, the DDR/Macquarie Mervyn's Portfolio
Loan. The IO classes were downgraded as they are no longer
receiving interest distributions, nor do Moody's expect them to
receive interest in the future.

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

The rating of an IO class is based on the credit performance of
its referenced classes or a specified set of loans. An IO class
may be upgraded based on a lower weighted average rating factor or
WARF due to an overall improvement in the credit quality of its
reference classes or a change in the credit profile of the
referenced set of loans. An IO class may be downgraded based on a
higher WARF due to a decline in the credit quality of its
reference classes, paydowns of higher quality reference classes,
credit decline of referenced loans or non-payment of interest.
Classes that have paid off through loan paydowns or amortization
are not included in the WARF calculation. Classes that have
experienced losses are grossed up for losses and included in the
WARF calculation, even if Moody's has withdrawn the rating.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions"
published in July 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review incorporated the use of the excel-based Large Loan
Model v8.7. 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 July 15, 2014 Payment Date, the transaction's aggregate
certificate balance has decreased to $7.6 million from $11.4
million at the prior review. The pay down is due to a release of
one of the collateralized properties, The Mervyn's at Foothill
Ranch Towne Center, located in Foothill Ranch, CA.

The DDR/Macquarie Mervyn's Portfolio Loan ($7.6 million) is an REO
loan. Currently, seven properties located in California and
Arizona remain. This loan represents a pari-passu interest in a
$102.1 million first mortgage loan. The pari-passu interests are
securitized in two transactions, GECMC 2005-C4 and GMACC 2006-C1.

The loan has paid down 84% since securitization and was originally
secured by 35 single tenant buildings leased to Mervyn's. Mervyn's
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in July 2008, closed
all its stores, and rejected the leases on all the properties in
this portfolio. The loan was transferred to special servicing in
October 2008. Moody's loan to value (LTV) ratio is over 100%, the
same as last review.

The Class L has experienced losses of $189,060 as of the current
Payment Date. In addition, there are interest shortfalls totaling
$5,594. Moody's does not rate the remaining principal classes,
Class L.


COMM MORTGAGE 2004-LNB2: Fitch Hikes Cl. J Certs Rating to 'Bsf'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded five classes and affirmed eight classes
of COMM Mortgage Trust 2004-LNB2 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrades reflect increasing credit enhancement as a result of
pay down since the last rating action and stable projected
performance. Two Fitch loans of concern (6.8% of the pool at time
of last rating action) have paid off, as well as two additional
loans (7.3%), and the remaining two non-defeased, non-specially
serviced loans continue to perform. Fitch modeled losses of 2.9%
of the original pool balance, including 2.5% in realized losses to
date.

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 91.6% to $81.3 million from
$963.8 million at issuance including $23.97 million (2.5% of the
original pool balance) in realized losses to date. There are five
loans remaining in the pool; two are defeased (80.2% of the pool),
including the largest (75.5%) and third largest loans (4.8%); and
one loan is in special servicing (3.8%). The two defeased loans
mature in December 2018 and January 2019, respectively. Interest
shortfalls are currently affecting classes K through P.

The specially-serviced loan is secured by a 59,933 square foot
(sf) retail center located in Fort Worth, TX. The center is
occupied by a mix of predominantly small local tenants with select
national tenants. The loan transferred to special servicing in
January 2014 due to maturity default. Occupancy and DSCR was 73%
and 1.47x as of year-end (YE) 2013, respectively. The special
servicer's anticipated strategy is an August 2014 foreclosure
sale.

The remaining performing loans are a multifamily property in
Wilmington, NC and a single-tenant Walgreens store in College
Station, TX. The multifamily property is reporting a 1.56x NOI
DSCR and 92.4% occupancy as of YE 2013. The loan matures in March
2019. The Walgreens asset is a fully amortizing loan with an April
2028 maturity.

Rating Sensitivities

The Stable rating Outlooks on classes B through J are the result
of high credit enhancement due to pay down and defeasance.
Additional upgrades are not expected until there is further
certainty of resolution on the specially serviced loan.

Fitch upgrades the following classes as indicated:

-- $8.4 million class E to 'AAAsf' from 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9.6 million class F to 'AAAsf' from 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10.8 million class G to 'AAAsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10.8 million class H to 'BBsf' from 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $4.8 million class J to 'Bsf' from 'CCCsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $487,243 class B at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9.6 million class C at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $19.3 million class D at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $6 million class K at 'Csf'; RE 70%;
-- $1.3 million 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%.

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


COMM MORTGAGE 2006-C8: Fitch Affirms 'CC' Rating on Class B Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of COMM Mortgage Trust
series 2006-C8 commercial mortgage pass-through certificates and
revised the Outlook on Class A-M to Stable from Negative.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations are the result of stable overall pool performance
since Fitch's last review. Fitch modeled losses of 10.9% for the
remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total
12.3%, including $187.5 million (7.4% of the original pool
balance) in realized losses to date. Fitch has designated 30 loans
(27.8%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes 18 specially
serviced assets (12.6%).

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 32.4% to $2.55 billion from
$3.78 billion at issuance. Nine loans (7.9%) are defeased.
Interest shortfalls totaling $40.1 million are currently affecting
classes E through S.

Rating Sensitivities

All investment rated classes are expected to remain stable and no
near-term rating actions are anticipated. In addition, the
distressed classes (rated below 'B') may be subject to further
rating actions as losses are realized.

The largest contributor to expected losses is a loan secured by
405,000 square feet (sf) of a 689,601 sf regional mall located in
Clovis, CA (3% of the pool). Loan was transferred to the special
servicing in September 2013 due to payment default. The servicer
is working with the borrower for a possible loan modification.
Occupancy as of April 2014 was 73.5%, compared to 74% at year-end
(YE) 2012 and 87.9% at issuance.

The second largest contributor to expected losses is a portfolio
of seven (12 at issuance) recreational vehicle resort communities
located in five different states (2.2%). All properties became
real estate owned assets (REO) as of May 2013. Based on servicer
provided asset valuations, significant losses are expected upon
liquidation of these assets.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is an
office/medical office building located in the West Central
submarket of Las Vegas, Nevada totaling 130,268 SF. The property
became REO as of June 2012 via foreclosure sale. The asset is on a
ground lease with approximately 11 years remaining. Occupancy as
of June 2014 was 66%.

Fitch affirms the following classes and revises Outlook as
indicated:

-- $12.2 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1.1 billion class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $481.8 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $377.6 million class A-M at 'AAsf'; Outlook to Stable from
    Negative;
-- $302.1 million class A-J at 'CCCsf'; RE 90%;
-- $28.3 million class B at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $42.5 million class C at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $37.8 million class D at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $23.6 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $28.3 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $51.9 million class G at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $37.8 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $15.4 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%.

The classes A-1, A-2A, A-2B and A-3 have paid in full. Fitch does
not rate the class P, Q and S certificates. Fitch previously
withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class X-P and X-S
certificates.


COMM 2014-FL4: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB-' Rating on 3 Certificates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to COMM 2014-FL4 Mortgage Trust's $441.0 million
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by four floating-rate loans secured
by the fee interest in 15 limited-service and select-service
hotels called the Blackstone Select Service Portfolio, the fee
interest in the Hilton Portland & Executive Tower, the fee
interest in Sofitel Chicago Water Tower, and the fee and leasehold
interest in the Renaissance Aruba Resort & Casino in Oranjestad,
Aruba via a mirror loan structure.  The Renaissance Aruba Resort &
Casino loan is not pooled.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of July 30,
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 collateral's
historical and projected performance, the sponsors' and managers'
experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loans' terms, and
the transaction's structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

COMM 2014-FL4 Mortgage Trust

Class            Rating                Amount
                                     (mil. $)
A                AAA (sf)         106,622,000
X-CP             BBB- (sf)        213,800,000(i)
X-EXT            BBB- (sf)        213,800,000(i)
B                AA- (sf)          39,330,000
C                A- (sf)           29,237,000
D                BBB- (sf)         38,571,000
X-BX             BBB- (sf)         99,700,000(i)
X-HP             BBB- (sf)         57,300,000(i)
X-SOF            BBB- (sf)         56,800,000(i)
BX(ii)           BB- (sf)          26,300,000
HP1(ii)          BB- (sf)          16,500,000
HP2(ii)          B (sf)             6,200,000
SOF1(ii)         BB- (sf)          15,700,000
SOF2(ii)         B (sf)             7,500,000
AR1(ii)          NR                45,384,000
AR-X-CP(ii)      BBB- (sf)         90,000,000(i)
AR-X-EXT(ii)     BBB- (sf)         90,000,000(i)
AR2(ii)          NR                12,902,000
AR3(ii)          NR                 8,622,000
AR4(ii)          BBB- (sf)         23,092,000
AR5(ii)          NR                65,000,000

  (i) Notional balance.
(ii) Loan-specific class.
  NR - Not rated.


COMM 2014-UBS4: DBRS Finalizes '(P)BB' Rating on Class E Secs.
--------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Inc. has finalized its provisional ratings of the following
classes of COMM 2014-UBS4 Mortgage Trust.  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 A-M at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-A at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-B at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-C at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-D at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (sf)
-- Class PEZ at A (sf)
-- Class C at A (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class E at BB (sf)
-- Class F at B (sf)

Classes X-B, X-C, X-D, D, E and F will be privately placed
pursuant to Rule 144A.

The Class X-A, X-B, X-C and X-D 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-M, Class B and
Class C certificates may be exchanged for the Class PEZ
certificates.  Class PEZ certificates may be exchanged for up to
the full certificate balance of the Class A-M, Class B and Class C
certificates.

The collateral consists of 91 fixed-rate loans secured by 124
commercial properties, for a total transaction balance of
$1,288,301,798.  The DBRS sample included 37 loans, representing
69.8% of the pool.  The pool is relatively diverse based on loan
size, with a concentration profile equivalent to that of a pool of
30 equal-sized loans, despite the largest loan representing 9.9%
of the pool.  Increased pool diversity helps to insulate the
higher-rated classes from event risk.  Properties located in urban
markets represent 22.9% of the pool, greater than transactions in
the recent past that typically have urban concentrations of 15.0%
to 20.0% and have increased liquidity.  Term default risk is
moderate, as indicated by a strong DBRS Term DSCR of 1.48x.  In
addition, 34 loans representing 39.3% of the pool have a DBRS Term
DSCR in excess of 1.50x, including four of the largest seven
loans.

The deal consists of sixteen properties, totaling 19.8% of the
pool, leased to single tenants, which have been found to have
higher losses in the event of default.  DBRS modeled single-tenant
properties with a higher expected loss compared with multi-tenant
properties.  The largest loan secured by a single tenant
represents a 14-property portfolio leased to State Farm Insurance,
which is rated investment grade.  Additionally, none of the
single-tenant properties in the pool are considered to be overly
specialized in such a manner that would make it difficult to re-
lease the space to another user.  The transaction has a high
concentration of loans exhibiting elevated refinance risk, with 35
loans, representing 52.2%, having a DBRS Refi DSCR below 1.00x and
15 loans, representing 19.7%, having a DBRS Refi DSCR below 0.90x.
These DSCRs are based on a weighted-average stress refinance
constant of 9.7%, which implies an interest rate of 9.2%,
amortizing on a 30-year schedule.  This represents a significant
stress of 4.4% over the weighted-average contractual interest rate
of the loans in the pool.


COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE 1999-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on H Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings of three classes
and affirmed one class of Paine Webber Mortgage Acceptance
Corporation V, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 1999-C1 as follows:

   Cl. F, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013
   Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

   Cl. G, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013
   Upgraded to B2 (sf)

   Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed C
   (sf)

   Cl. X, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013
   Affirmed Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The upgrades of the two principal and interest classes F and G,
are based primarily on an increase in credit support resulting
from scheduled amortization and defeasance. The ratings on P&I
Class H was affirmed because the rating is consistent with Moody's
expected loss. The upgrade to the IO Class, Class X, is based on
the credit performance of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 11.2% of
the current balance, compared to 10.3% at last review. Moody's
current base expected loss plus cumulative realized losses is 2.4%
of the original balance, the same at 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 may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may
cause an upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns
or amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased 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, "Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000, and "Commercial Real Estate
Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating Credit Tenant Lease
Financings" published in November 2011.

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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 5, compared to 6 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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.

Moody's currently uses a Gaussian copula model, incorporated in
its public CDO rating model CDOROMv2.13-1, to generate a portfolio
loss distribution for the CTL component which is used to assess
the credit quality of this component.

Deal Performance

As of the July 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 96% to $31.4
million from $704.8 million at securitization. The Certificates
are collateralized by 14 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 2% to 27% of the pool, with the top ten loans representing
78% of the pool. Four loans, representing 60% of the pool, are
secured by credit tenant leases (CTLs). Three loans, representing
21% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by U.S. Government
securities.

Three 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
Moody's 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 $13.4 million (38% loss severity on
average). There are currently no loans in special servicing.

Moody's was provided with full year 2013 operating results for
100% of the pool, excluding defeased loans and CTL Loans. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 35% compared to 40% at Moody's
prior 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 13% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 11.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.51X and 3.71X,
respectively, compared to 1.41X and 3.18X at prior 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%
stressed rate applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 12% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Post Haste Plaza Loan ($1.8 million -- 5.7% of
the pool), which is secured by a 35,890 square foot (SF) retail
property located in Hollywood, Florida. As of March 2014, the
property was 100% leased, the same at last review. The loan is
fully amortizing and has amortized by 37% since securitization.
The loan matures in October 2023. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 35% and 3.36X, respectively, compared to 45% and 2.63X at last
review.

The second largest loan is the Best Western Regent Inn Loan ($1.1
million -- 3.4% of the pool), which is secured by an 88-room
limited service hotel located in Mansfield Center, Connecticut.
The loan is fully amortizing and has amortized by 62% since
securitization. The loan matures in September 2018. The loan is on
the servicer's watchlist due to low DSCR. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 47% and 2.75X, respectively, compared to 57% and 2.27X at
last review.

The third largest loan is the Cambridge Court Apartments Loan
($842,996 -- 2.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 100-unit
multifamily property located in Briarcliff, Georgia. As of March
2014, property was 79% occupied, compared to 84% at last review.
The loan is fully amortizing and has amortized by 64% since
securitization. The loan matures in August 2018. The loan is on
the servicer's watchlist due to low DSCR. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 27% and 3.77X, respectively, compared to 31% and 3.34X at
last review.

The CTL component consists of four loans, totaling 60% of the
pool, secured by properties leased to four tenants. The largest
exposures are Beckman Coulter, Inc. ($8.3 million -- 26.5% of the
pool; Beckman was acquired by Danaher Corporation; senior
unsecured rating A2 -- stable outlook) and Regal Cinemas
Corporation ($6.6 million -- 21.0% of the pool; Regal
Entertainment Group; senior unsecured rating B3 -- stable
outlook). The bottom-dollar weighted average rating factor (WARF)
for the CTL component is 2,018 compared to 1,827 at last review.
WARF is a measure of the overall quality of a pool of diverse
credits. The bottom-dollar WARF is a measure of the default
probability within the pool.


CREST 2003-2: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'CC'
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
C-1 and C-2 notes from Crest 2003-2 Ltd., a static cash flow
collateralized debt obligation of commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CDO of CMBS) transaction, and removed them from
CreditWatch positive, where S&P placed them on April 24, 2014.  At
the same time, S&P affirmed its 'CCC- (sf)' ratings on the class
D-1 and D-2 notes and lowered its ratings on the class E-1 and E-2
notes.

The upgrades reflect the increased credit support available to the
class C notes.  Since S&P's December 2013 rating actions, the
transaction has paid down the rated liabilities by $32.08 million.
As a result, the class B notes were paid in full, and the class C
notes, which are the most senior tranches, were paid down to
58.41% of their original balance.  In addition, the class C
overcollateralization (O/C) ratio has increased to 337.14% as of
June 30, 2014, from 182.03% as of Oct. 31, 2013.

Despite class C's increased O/C ratio, the class D O/C ratio has
only increased slightly and the class E O/C ratio has decreased.
As of the June 30, 2014, payment date, both class D's and E's
deferred interest balances increased, and their O/C and interest
coverage tests were failing.  S&P lowered its ratings on the class
E notes to reflect its view that these notes will continue to
accrue deferred interest given the low interest coverage ratio
(47.36%) reported in the June trustee report and also the
unlikelihood that they will receive full principal and deferred
interest.

S&P's affirmations on the class D notes reflect the credit support
available to them.

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.  S&P will take rating
actions as it deems necessary.

RATING AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

Crest 2003-2 Ltd.

Class     Rating        Rating
          To            From
C-1       BBB- (sf)     BB- (sf)/Watch Pos
C-2       BBB- (sf)     BB- (sf)/Watch Pos
E-1       CC (sf)       CCC- (sf)
E-2       CC (sf)       CCC- (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Crest 2003-2 Ltd.

Class     Rating
D-1       CCC- (sf)
D-2       CCC- (sf)


CSFB 2006-TFL2: Moody's Raises Rating on Class K Certs to 'Caa1'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings of four classes,
affirmed the ratings of two classes and downgraded the rating of
one interest-only (IO) class of CSFB 2006-TFL2 Commercial Pass-
Through Certificates as follows:

Cl. G, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2013 Affirmed
B1 (sf)

Cl. H, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2013 Affirmed
B2 (sf)

Cl. J, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. K, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2013
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. A-X-1, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2013
Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Cl. A-X-3, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The upgrades of four principal and interest (P&I) classes are
primarily due to increased credit support resulting from loan pay
offs. The pooled debt has paid down by 83% since last review. The
affirmation of P&I Class L is consistent with Moody's expected
loss and thus is affirmed.

The downgrade of IO Class A-X-1 is based on a decline in the
weighted average rating factor or WARF of its referenced classes
due to paydowns since last review. The rating of IO Class A-X-3 is
consistent with the expected credit performance of its referenced
loan, the JW Marriott Starr Pass loan, and thus is affirmed.

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 pay downs 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 CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions"
published in July 2000.

Description Of Models Used

Moody's review incorporated the use of the excel-based Large Loan
Model v 8.7. 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. These aggregated proceeds are then further
adjusted for any pooling benefits associated with loan level
diversity, other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the July 15, 2014 Payment Date the transaction's pooled
certificate balance has decreased by 96% to $78.0 million from
$1.9 billion at securitization due to the pay off 13 loans
originally in the pool.

The pool has experienced $249,356 in losses since securitization.
The losses were due to the special servicer's workout fee
associated with the Sheffield condo conversion loan that was
originally 10% of the pool. Interest shortfalls total $135,390 and
affect Class L.

The one remaining loan in the trust is the JW Marriott Starr Pass
loan ($78.0 million). It is secured by a 575-key resort hotel
located in Tucson, Arizona. The loan was transferred to special
servicing in April 2010 due to the borrower's inability to
refinance the debt. The loan matured in August 2010 resulting in a
maturity default. A receiver was appointed in November 2011.
Revenue per Available Room (RevPAR) for the trailing 12-month
period ended June 30, 2014 was $96. The Net Cash Flow forecast for
FY 2014 is about $1.9 million. The special servicer is working
through legal issues that have been impediments to loan
resolution. The $145 million mortgage debt includes $67.0 million
of non-trust subordinate debt. There is also $20.0 million of
mezzanine debt. Moody's loan to value (LTV) ratio of the pooled
debt is in excess of 100%.


CSFB 2007-TFL1: Moody's Affirms 'C' Ratings on 2 Certificates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings of four classes and
affirmed the ratings of three classes of CSFB Commercial Mortgage
Trust, Commercial Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-TFL1 as
follows:

Cl. F, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. H, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

Cl. J, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. A-X-1, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on May 22, 2014
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The upgrades of four P&I classes are due to the improved operating
performance and decrease in Moody's loan to value (LTV) ratio of
the one remaining loan in the trust, the JW Marriott Las Vegas
Resort & Spa loan. The ratings of Class K and Class L are
consistent with Moody's expected loss and thus are affirmed. The
rating of interest-only (IO) Class A-X-1 is consistent with the
weighted average rating factor or WARF of its referenced classes
and thus is affirmed.

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 pay downs 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 CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions"
published in July 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review incorporated the use of the excel-based Large Loan
Model v 8.7. 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. These aggregated proceeds are then further
adjusted for any pooling benefits associated with loan level
diversity, other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the July 18, 2014 Payment Date, the transaction's aggregate
certificate balance has decreased by 88% to $149.8 million from
$1.266 million at securitization due to the payoff of ten loans
originally in the trust and the partial pay down of the JW
Marriott Las Vegas Resort & Spa loan, the one remaining loan in
the trust. The trust has cumulative losses of $201,649 affecting
pooled Class L. Property protection advances in the amount of $2.1
million, including about $1.9 million in legal fees, are currently
outstanding. All cash flow is being trapped from both the hotel
and casino operations and it is expected that the outstanding
shortfalls will be repaid from operating cash flow. The loan is
current for debt service payments. The borrower was granted a 15-
month forbearance until February 8, 2015.

The JW Marriott Las Vegas Resort & Spa loan ($149.8 million) is
secured by a 548-guestroom full-service hotel with a 56,750 square
foot casino and 44,396 square feet of retail/restaurant space and
a 40,000 square foot spa. The hotel is located in Summerlin (Las
Vegas), Nevada and was constructed in 2000 and renovated in 2006.
The loan was transferred to special servicing in September 2011
due to imminent default. The loan matured on November 9, 2011 and
went into default as the borrower failed to pay off the loan at
maturity. Total mortgage debt of $159.8 million includes a $10.0
million junior participation interest that is not included in the
trust. An appraisal reduction in the amount of $37.1 million was
applied in June 2014 based on a January 2014 appraisal value of
$123.0 million. Previously, an Appraisal Reduction in the amount
of $54.1 million had been applied in November 2013 based on a
November 2012 appraised value of $109.8 million.

Operating Profit increased 31% during the January through May 2014
period compared to the same four month period last year. The
improved performance was primarily due to increases in food &
beverage and casino revenue and a decrease in expenses, primarily
casino overhead. However, revenue per available room (RevPAR)
declined during the same period to $108 from $110 in the previous
year.

Moody's loan to value (LTV) ratio is greater than 100%.


CSMC TRUST 2014-IVR3: S&P Assigns BB+ Rating on Class B-3 Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to CSMC
Trust 2014-IVR3's $352.716 million mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2014-IVR3.

The certificate issuance is a residential mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by first-lien, fixed-rate
residential mortgage loans secured by single- and two-to-four-
family residences, condominiums, co-ops, and planned urban
development to prime borrowers.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of the transaction's credit
enhancement, the pool's high-quality collateral, and the
associated structural deal mechanics.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

CSMC Trust 2014-IVR3

Class         Ratings                Amount
                                    (mil. $)
A-1           AAA (sf)               278.349
A-2           AAA (sf)                 6.186
A-7           AAA (sf)                50.000
A-X-1         AAA (sf)              Notional
A-X-2         AAA (sf)              Notional
A-X-4         AAA (sf)              Notional
A-X-5         AAA (sf)              Notional
B-1           AA (sf)                  5.272
B-2           A (sf)                   6.546
B-3           BB+ (sf)                 6.363
B-4           NR                       5.273
B-5           NR                       5.636
A-3           AAA (sf)               284.535
A-4           AAA (sf)               278.349
A-5           AAA (sf)                 6.186
A-6           AAA (sf)               284.535
A-8           AAA (sf)               284.535
A-X-3         AAA (sf)              Notional
A-X-6         AAA (sf)              Notional
A-IO-S        NR                    Notional

NR-Not rated.


CUTWATER 2014-I: Moody's Assigns 'B2' Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes
of notes issued by Cutwater 2014-I, Ltd.

$216,600,000 Class A-1a Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1a Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Aaa (sf)

$45,000,000 Class A-1b Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1b Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Aaa (sf)

$38,200,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Aa2 (sf)

$25,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
A2 (sf)

$22,900,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

$21,800,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

$7,300,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

The Class A-1a Notes, the Class A-1b Notes, the Class A-2 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."

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected losses
posed to noteholders. The 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.

Cutwater CLO 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 and eligible investments, and up
to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 75% ramped as of
the closing date.

Cutwater Asset Management Corp. (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 up to
50% of unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of
credit risk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2664

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.10%

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
February 2014.

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 2664 to 3064)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1a Notes: -1

Class A-1b Notes: -1

Class A-2 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 2664 to 3463)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1a Notes: -1

Class A-1b Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -3

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

The score for the "Experience of, Arrangements Among and Oversight
of the Transaction Parties," a sub-category of the V Score, is one
notch higher than that of the benchmark CLO, which is Low/Medium.
The score of Medium reflects the fact that this transaction will
be the Manager's first CLO. This higher score for "Experience of,
Arrangements Among and Oversight of the Transaction Parties" does
not, however, cause this transaction's overall composite V Score
of Medium/High to differ from that of the CLO sector benchmark.

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.


CVP CASCADE CLO-2: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to CVP
Cascade CLO-2 Ltd./CVP Cascade CLO-2 LLC's $474.50 million fixed-
and floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly
syndicated senior secured loans.

The ratings reflect S&P's assessment 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 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 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 investment 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 0.2600%-13.8391%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization (O/C) and interest-
      overage 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 up to 50% of the
      excess interest proceeds that are available before paying
      uncapped administrative expenses, subordinated and incentive
      management fees, and subordinated note payments into
      principal proceeds to purchase additional collateral assets
      during the reinvestment period.

RATINGS LIST

CVP Cascade CLO-2 Ltd./CVP Cascade CLO-2 LLC

Class                Rating              Amount
                                        (mil. $)
A-1                  AAA (sf)            316.25
A-2A                 AA (sf)              38.75
A-2B                 AA (sf)              20.00
B                    A (sf)               37.75
C                    BBB (sf)             24.75
D                    BB (sf)              24.00
E                    B (sf)               13.00
Subordinated notes   NR                   46.25

NR-Not rated.


CVS CREDIT: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Series A-2 Certificates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the rating of CVS Credit Lease
Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series A-1 and Series A-2 as
follows:

Series A-2, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 25, 2013 Affirmed
Ba1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating was affirmed based on the support of the long term
triple net lease guaranteed by CVS/Caremark Corp. (Moody's senior
unsecured debt rating Baa1, stable outlook), as well as the
residual value insurance policies provided by the Royal Indemnity
Company, which is unrated by Moody's. The rating on the A-2
Certificate is notched down from CVS's rating due to the size of
the loan balance at maturity relative to the value of the
collateral assuming the existing tenant is no longer in occupancy
(the dark value).

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

The ratings of Credit Tenant Lease (CTL) deals are primarily based
on the senior unsecured debt rating (or the corporate family
rating) of the tenants leasing the real estate collateral
supporting the bonds. Other factors that are also considered are
Moody's dark value of the collateral (value based on the property
being vacant or dark), which is used to determine a recovery rate
upon a loan's default and the rating of the residual insurance
provider, if applicable. Factors that may cause an upgrade of the
ratings include an upgrade in the rating of the corporate tenant
or significant loan paydowns or amortization which results in a
higher dark loan to value. Factors that may cause a downgrade of
the ratings include a downgrade in the rating of the corporate
tenant or the residual insurance provider.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Commercial Real
Estate Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating Credit Tenant Lease
Financings" published in November 2011.

No models were used during this analysis.

Deal Performance

As of the July 30, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate Certificate balance was $125 million. The Certificate is
supported by 96 single-tenant, stand-alone retail buildings leased
to CVS. Each building is subject to a fully bondable triple net
lease guaranteed by CVS. The properties are located across 17
states. The rated final distribution date is January 10, 2023.

During the term of the transaction, the A-2 Certificate is
supported by CVS/Caremark Corp. (CVS) lease obligations. The
balloon payment is insured under residual value insurance
policies.

CVS/Caremark Corp., headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island,
fills the largest number of prescriptions in the United States.
The company fills or manages more than 1 billion prescriptions
annually. It operates over 7,500 retail pharmacy stores in 42
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Brazil. In
addition, it has a pharmacy benefits management operation, a mail
order and specialty pharmacy division, an on-line pharmacy, and
over 650 MinuteClinics in twenty five states and the District of
Columbia. It is the only fully integrated pharmacy health care
company in the United States. Revenues are over $123 billion.


DENALI CAPITAL VI: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. B-2L Notes to Ba2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Denali Capital CLO VI, Ltd.:

$19,000,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Upgraded to
Aa1 (sf); previously on March 7, 2014 Upgraded to A1 (sf);

$14,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf); previously on March 7, 2014 Upgraded to Ba2 (sf).

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

$27,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020 (current
outstanding balance of $18,688,207), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously
on March 7, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf);

$24,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on March 7, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa (sf);

$16,000,000 Class C-1 Combination Notes Due 2020 (current
outstanding rated balance $6,134,121), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on March 7, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf).

Denali CLO VI, Ltd., issued in March 2006, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans, with a significant portion of the collateral pool
including debt obligations from middle market issuers. The
transaction's reinvestment period ended in July 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 (OC) ratios since February 2014. The Class A-1L
and A-1LR notes have been paid down completely or by approximately
$42 million and the Class A-2L notes have paid down by 31% or
approximately $8.3 million since February 2014. Based on the
trustee's July 7, 2014 report, the OC ratios for the Class A-2L,
Class A-3L, Class B-1L and Class B-2L notes are reported at
267.36%, 166.44%, 128.15% and 109.57%, respectively, versus
February 2014 levels of 194.64%, 144.47%, 119.98% and 106.66%,
respectively. Moody's notes that the July 7, 2014 trustee reported
OC ratios do not include $20.89 million of principal payments that
were made to the Class A-1L, A-1LR and A-2L notes on the July 21,
2014 payment date.

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
February 2014.

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) Exposure to credit estimates: The deal contains a significant
number of securities whose default probabilities Moody's has
assessed through credit estimates. If Moody's does not receive the
necessary information to update its credit estimates in a timely
fashion, the transaction could be negatively affected by any
default probability adjustments Moody's assumes in lieu of updated
credit estimates.

7) Decreasing portfolio granularity: The continued amortization of
the portfolio has resulted in larger obligors as a percentage of
par. If the diversity of this CLO continues to decrease, the
portfolio could depend to a large extent on the credit conditions
of a few large obligors.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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% (2282)

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: +1

Class B-2L: +1

Class C-1: 0

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3423)

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: -1

Class B-2L: -1

Class C-1: 0

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 February 2014.

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 $84.85 million, defaulted
par of $3.2 million, a weighted average default probability of
17.17% (implying a WARF of 2853), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 52.28%, a diversity score of 29 and a weighted
average spread of 3.64%.

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.


DUANE STREET III: Moody's Raises Rating on Class E Notes to Ba1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Duane Street CLO III, Ltd.:

$28,500,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes Due
2021, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on December 12, 2013
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

$27,500,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes Due
2021, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on December 12, 2013
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

$14,000,000 Class E Deferrable Junior Floating Rate Notes Due
2021, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on December 12, 2013
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

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

$262,100,000 Class A-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021
(current outstanding balance of $67,695,358), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on December 12, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$137,500,000 Class A-2a Senior Revolving Floating Rate Notes Due
2021 (current outstanding balance of $29,950,694), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on December 12, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$7,500,000 Class A-2b Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on December 12, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

$33,000,000 Class B Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on December 12, 2013 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Duane Street CLO III, Ltd., issued in December 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in January 2013.

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 (OC) since December 2013. Since then, the
Class A-1 and A-2a notes have been paid down by approximately
48.5% or $92.1 million. Based on Moody's calculation, the OC
ratios for the Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D and Class E
notes are currently 226.0%, 172.0%, 142.6%, 122.4% and 114.2%,
respectively, versus December 2013 levels of 168.4%, 144.3%,
128.4%, 116.0% and 110.6%, respectively.

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
February 2014.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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% (2189)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2a: 0

Class A-2b: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: +3

Class E: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3283)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2a: 0

Class A-2b: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -1

Class D: -1

Class E: -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 February 2014.

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 $231.5 million, defaulted
par of $16.0 million, a weighted average default probability of
17.22% (implying a WARF of 2736), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 48.3%, a diversity score of 39 and a weighted
average spread of 3.4%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for CLO securities as published in "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs". In some cases, alternative recovery
assumptions may be considered based on the specifics of the
analysis of the CLO transaction. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


EATON VANCE 2014-1: Moody's Assigns 'Ba3' Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes tissued by Eaton Vance CLO 2014-1, Ltd.:

Moody's rating actions are as follows:

  $315,500,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
  2026 (the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

  $63,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
  (the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

  $29,750,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
  Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating
  Assigned A2 (sf)

  $27,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
  Notes due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating
  Assigned Baa3 (sf)

  $28,500,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
  2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

The Class A 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."

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected losses
posed to noteholders. The 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.

Eaton Vance CLO 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 95% of the portfolio
must consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible
investments, and up to 5% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans. The Issuer's portfolio is
approximately 70% ramped as of the closing date and the Issuer's
documents require that the portfolio be 100% ramped within four
months thereafter.

Eaton Vance Management (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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2590

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.4%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

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
February 2014.

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 2590 to 2979)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -1

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2590 to 3367)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -3

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

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.


EVERGLADES RE 2013-I: S&P Affirms 'B(sf)' Rating on Class A Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its 'B(sf)' rating on
the Series 2013-I Class A notes issued by Everglades Re Ltd.  The
updated attachment level is $4.896 billion and the reset
probability of attachment is 2.75%.  The initial attachment level
was $5.139 billion and the probability of attachment at closing
was 2.91% and, per the transactions' terms and conditions, could
be reset within a range of 2.75% to 3.00%.

When rating natural-peril catastrophe bonds that cover hurricanes,
S&P looks to the more-conservative of the base-case and
sensitivity-case results to derive the natural-catastrophe (nat-
cat) risk factor.  For this issuance, the sensitivity case
probability of attachment following the reset is 3.13%; after S&P
adjusts this probability of attachment based on transaction-
specific factors, the nat-cat risk factor would be 'B+'.

S&P also reviewed the creditworthiness of the ceding company,
Citizens Property Insurance Co. and its ratings on the collateral,
Goldman Sachs Financial Square Treasury Instruments Money Market
Fund #506 ('AAAm'), that, barring the occurrence of a covered
event, will be used to redeem the principal on the redemption
date.

In 2015, when the final reset occurs, if the probability of
attachment is reset to 2.75%, S&P could raise its rating on the
notes to 'B+(sf)'.  This depends on other factors, such as the
sensitivity-case probability of attachment, the shape of the
occurrence exceedance probability curve, any changes in the
modeling, the creditworthiness of the ceding company, and the
rating on the collateral, among others.

RATINGS LIST

Ratings Affirmed

Everglades Re Ltd.
  Series 2013-I Class A                   B(sf)


FLAGSHIP CLO V: Moody's Affirms 'B1' Rating on Class B Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Flagship CLO V, Ltd.:

$33,750,000 Class B Floating Rate Notes, Due 2019, Upgraded to
Aaa (sf); previously on August 1, 2013 Upgraded to Aa2 (sf);

$22,500,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes, Due 2019,
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on August 1, 2013 Affirmed Baa1
(sf);

$17,500,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes, Due 2019,
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on August 1, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf).

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

$365,000,000 Class A Floating Rate Notes, Due 2019 (current
outstanding balance of $171,063,083.70), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on August 1, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf);

$22,500,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes, Due 2019,
Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on August 1, 2013 Affirmed B1 (sf).

Flagship CLO V, Ltd., issued in September 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in September 2013.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization (OC) ratios since December 2013. The Class A
notes have been paid down by approximately 53% or $194 million
since December 2013. Based on the trustee's July 2014 report, the
OC ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, Class D and Class E notes
are reported at 134.98%, 121.62%, 112.93% and 103.42%,
respectively, versus December 2013 levels of 118.69%, 112.35%,
107.87% and 102.61%, respectively.

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
February 2014.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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% (2071)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +3

Class D: +1

Class E: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3106)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -1

Class D: -2

Class E: -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 February 2014.

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 of $275.3 million, defaulted par of $4.5 million, a weighted
average default probability of 14.90% (implying a WARF of 2589), a
weighted average recovery rate upon default of 50.55%, a diversity
score of 43 and a weighted average spread of 3.06%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for securities as published in "Moody's Approach to
Rating SF CDOs." In some cases, alternative recovery assumptions
may be considered based on the specifics of the analysis of the
transaction. In each case, historical and market performance and
the collateral manager's latitude for trading the collateral are
also factors.


G-FORCE CDO 2006-1: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 4 Note Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 11 classes issued by G-Force CDO 2006-1
Ltd./Corp (G-Force 2006-1).  The affirmations are a result of
amortization of the capital structure.

Key Rating Drivers

Since the last rating action in September 2013, approximately
13.8% of the collateral has been downgraded and 24.7% has been
upgraded.  Currently, 58.6% of the portfolio has a Fitch derived
rating below investment grade and 29.2% has a rating in the 'CCC'
category and below, compared to 65.2% and 31.7%, respectively, at
the last rating action.  Over this time, the A-2 notes, A-3 notes
and SSFL notes together have received $68.7 million in paydowns
and the transaction has experienced approximately $26.6 million of
principal losses.

This transaction was analyzed under the framework described in the
report 'Global Rating Criteria for Structured Finance CDOs' using
the Portfolio Credit Model (PCM) for projecting future default
levels for the underlying portfolio.  Fitch also analyzed the
structure's sensitivity to the assets that are distressed,
experiencing interest shortfalls, and those with near-term
maturities.  Based on this analysis, the credit characteristics of
class SSFL are consistent with the ratings assigned.

For the class A-3, JRFL, and F through G notes, Fitch analyzed the
sensitivity of each class to the default of the distressed assets
('CCC' and below).  Given the high probability of default of these
assets and expected limited recovery prospects upon default and
the risk of shortfalls in the payment of timely interest to the
classes, Fitch has affirmed the class A-3 and JRFL notes at
'CCsf', indicating that default is probable.  Similarly, Fitch has
affirmed the class F through J notes at 'Csf', indicating that
default is inevitable.

On the Dec. 4, 2009 payment date, the transaction entered into an
event of default (EOD) due to the failure to pay the full and
timely interest on the class E notes.  Subsequently, the class B
through D notes defaulted on their timely interest payments.
Therefore, Fitch has affirmed the class B through E notes at
'Dsf'.  Although class B notes are now current on interest, the
notes remain under collateralized.

RATING SENSITIVITIES:

The Stable Outlook on the class SSFL notes reflects Fitch's view
that the transaction will continue to delever.  Further negative
migration and defaults beyond those projected by SF PCM as well as
increasing concentration in assets of a weaker credit quality
could lead to downgrades to the class A-3 and JRFL notes.

G-Force 2006-1 is a commercial real estate collateralized debt
obligation (CRE CDO) that closed on Sept. 13, 2006.  The
transaction is completely collateralized by commercial mortgage
backed securities (CMBS).

Fitch has affirmed the following classes and revised Outlooks as
indicated:

   -- $122,665,000 class A-3 at 'CCsf';
   -- $57,009,354 class SSFL at 'BBBsf'; Outlook to Stable from
      Negative;
   -- $67,000,000 class JRFL at 'CCsf';
   -- $42,921,000 class B at 'Dsf'
   -- $18,709,000 class C at 'Dsf'
   -- $31,916,000 class D at 'Dsf'
   -- $28,614,000 class E at 'Dsf';
   -- $15,350,493 class F at 'Csf';
   -- $28,010,469 class G at 'Csf';
   -- $21,128,083 class H at 'Csf';
   -- $29,167,304 class J at 'Csf'.

The class A-1 and A-2 certificates have paid in full.


GE COMMERCIAL 2004-C3: Moody's Cuts Cl. X-1 Debt Rating to Caa2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on six classes,
upgraded the ratings on two classes and downgraded the rating on
one class in GE Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-C3 as follows:

Cl. F, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. N, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013
Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

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

The ratings on P&I classes F and G were upgraded primarily due to
an increase in credit support since Moody's last review, resulting
from 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 pool has paid down by 89% since Moody's last
review.

The rating on the IO Class (Class X-1) was downgraded due to a
decline in the credit performance (or the weighted average rating
factor or WARF) of its referenced classes due to the paydown of
highly rated classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 31% of the
current balance compared to 4.6% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.7% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 4.2% 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
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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 five compared to 35 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 10, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 95% to $74 million
from $1.38 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by nine mortgage loans ranging in size from 1% to
24% of the pool, with the top three non-defeased loans
constituting 40% of the pool. One loan, constituting 25% of the
pool, has defeased and is secured by US government securities.

Three loans, constituting 40% 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.

Twelve loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $27 million (for an average loss
severity of 26%). Three loans, constituting 29% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Newsome Park loan (for $13.6 million 18% of the pool),
which is secured by a 650 unit multifamily property. The loan
transferred to special servicing effective August 2, 2012 for
imminent monetary default. The current strategy is to stabilize
and reposition the property by the fourth quarter of 2016. The
current occupancy is 44% compared to 47% at last review.

The remaining two specially serviced loans are secured by an
office and retail property. Moody's estimates an aggregate $11
million loss for the specially serviced loans (65% expected loss
on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for two poorly
performing loans, constituting 29% of the pool, and has estimated
a loss of $11 million (a 48% expected loss based on a 79%
probability default) from the troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 and full or partial year 2013
operating results for 100% of the pool. Moody's weighted average
conduit LTV is 67%, compared to 71% at Moody's last review.
Moody's conduit component excludes loans with structured 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 8.9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.35X and 1.56X,
respectively, compared to 1.59X and 1.67X 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 40% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Maspeth Industrial Center A Loan ($18 million
-- 24.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 670,000 square foot
(SF) industrial building located in Queens County. The property's
recent performance has been impacted by increased operating
expenses. The current occupancy is 94% compared to 92% at prior
review. In 2011, the loan was modified into an A/B note after the
borrower injected approximately $2 million to bring the loan
current and lease up the space. The current balance of the B-note
is $.8 million. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR of the A-note are
134% and 0.73X, respectively, compared to 119% and 0.82X at the
last review.

The second largest loan is the Moreno Valley Village Loan ($7.7
million -- 10.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 112,000 SF
retail shopping center located in the Riverside MSA. Current
occupancy is 83% compared to 82% at yearend 2013. The borrower was
granted a 60-day extension and payoff is expected in August.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 80% and 1.18X, respectively,
compared to 117% and 0.81X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Greens at Marion Phase II & III Loan
($4 million -- 5.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 216 unit
multifamily property located 12 miles outside of Memphis. Current
occupancy is 95% compared to 93% at prior review. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 44% and 2.11X, respectively, compared to 51% and
1.82X at the last review.


GMAC COMMERCIAL 1999-C2: Moody's Cuts Cl. X Certs Rating to Caa1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings of one class,
affirmed three classes and downgraded one class of GMAC Commercial
Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 1999-C2 as follows:

Cl. H, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 17, 2013 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Oct 17, 2013 Upgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 17, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct 17, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 17, 2013
Affirmed B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The upgrade on the P&I class H was due to an increase in credit
support resulting from loan paydowns and amortization. The deal
has paid down by 16% since Moody's last review.

The affirmation of one principal and interest class, class J is
due to key parameters, including Moody's loan to value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR), the
Herfindahl Index (Herf), and the weighted average rating factor
(WARF) of CTL component remaining within acceptable ranges.

The ratings of Classes K and L are consistent with Moody's
expected loss and thus are affirmed.

The rating on the IO Class, Class X was downgraded based on the
weighted average rating factor of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.4% of the
current balance, compared to 3.0% at last review. Moody's current
base expected loss plus cumulative realized losses is 2.5% of the
original balance, the same as at 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 may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may
cause an upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns
or amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased 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, "Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000, and "Commercial Real Estate
Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating Credit Tenant Lease
Financings" published in November 2011.

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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 4, the same as at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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.

Moody's currently uses a Gaussian copula model, incorporated in
its public CDO rating model CDOROMv2.13-1, to generate a portfolio
loss distribution for the CTL component which is used to assess
the credit quality of this component.

Deal Performance

As of the July 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 93% to $71.9
million from $974.5 million at securitization. The Certificates
are collateralized by 13 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 35% of the pool. Six loans, representing 73% of the
pool, are secured by credit tenant leases (CTLs). Four loans,
representing 15% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by
U.S. Government securities.

One loan, representing 3% of the pool, is 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 Moody's
ongoing monitoring of a transaction, Moody's reviews the watchlist
to assess which loans have material issues that could impact
performance.

Fifteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $21.6 million (16% loss severity on
average).

There are no loans currently in special servicing.

Moody's was provided with full year 2013 operating results for
100% of the pool, excluding defeased loans and CTL loans. The
conduit portion of the deal is composed of three loans. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 63% compared to 70% at Moody's
prior review. Moody's net cash flow reflects a weighted average
haircut of 36% to the most recently available net operating
income. Moody's value reflects a weighted average capitalization
rate of 10.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.07X and 1.92X,
respectively, compared to 1.04X and 1.73X at 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 three conduit loans represent 12% of the outstanding pool
balance. The largest loan is the Bal Seal Engineering Loan ($4.8
million -- 6.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 125,000 square
foot (SF) industrial property located in Foothill Ranch,
California. The property is 100% leased to Bal Seal Engineering
Company through January 2019. Due to single tenant exposure risk,
a lit/dark analysis was applied. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
46% and 2.35X, respectively, compared to 50% and 2.14X at last
review.

The second largest loan is the Dendrite Office Building Loan ($2.0
million -- 2.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 26,280 SF
office complex located in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. The property
was 76% leased as of April 2014, the same as last review. The loan
is on the servicer's watchlist due to low DSCR and occupancy.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 105% and 1.03X, respectively,
compared to 114% and 0.95X at last review.

The third largest loan is the 30 Executive Avenue Loan ($1.7
million -- 2.3% of the pool), which is secured by an 89,178 SF
industrial property located in Edison, New Jersey. The property is
100% leased to Skekia Group through December 2015. Due to the
single tenant exposure a lit/dark analysis was applied. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 61% and 1.78X, respectively, compared to
73% and 1.49X at last review.

The CTL component includes six loans ($52.8 million -- 68.1% of
the pool) secured by properties leased to five tenants under
bondable leases. The largest exposures are Ingram Micro Inc.
($35.9 -- 47.4% of the pool; Moody's senior unsecured rating Baa3,
stable outlook), CarMax ($13.5 - 16.4% of the pool), and Rite Aid
Corporation ($1.4 million -- 1.8% of the pool; Moody's senior
unsecured rating Caa1; stable outlook). The bottom-dollar weighted
average rating factor (WARF) for the CTL component is 1,001
compared to 1,028 at last review. WARF is a measure of the overall
quality of a pool of diverse credits. The bottom-dollar WARF is a
measure of the default probability within the pool.


GMAC COMMERCIAL 2004-C2: Moody's Cuts Cl. X-1 Debt Rating to Caa1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on two classes,
affirmed the ratings on four classes and downgraded the rating on
one class in GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Series
2004-C2 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013
Affirmed Aa3 (sf)

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013
Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on P&I classes A-1A and A-4 were upgraded based
primarily on an increase in credit support resulting from loan
paydowns and amortization.

The deal has paid down 73% since Moody's last review. The ratings
on P&I classes B and C 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 P&I classes D and E were affirmed because the ratings are
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO Class (Class X-1) was downgraded due to the
decline in the credit performance of its reference classes
resulting from principal paydowns of higher quality reference
classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 11.9% of
the current balance compared to 4.3% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 11.0% of
the original pooled balance compared to 12.0% 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 "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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 four compared to 12 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 10, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 84% to $153 million
from $934 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 21 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 34% of the pool, with the top ten non-defeased loans
constituting 80% of the pool. Two loans, constituting 20% of the
pool, have defeased and are secured by US government securities.

Fourteen loans, constituting 29% 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.

Eleven loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $84 million (for an average loss
severity of 56%). Three loans, constituting 40% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Military Circle Mall loan ($52 million -- 34% of the
pool), which is secured by a regional mall located in Norfolk,
Virgina and anchored by Macy's, JC Penny's and Sears. The loan
transferred to special servicing in August 2013 due to imminent
default. Current occupancy is 67% compared to 70% at prior review.
The borrower is currently in negotiations with the special
servicer regarding potential resolutions.

The remaining two specially serviced loans are secured by an
industrial and office property. Moody's estimates an aggregate
$17.1 million loss for the specially serviced loans (30% expected
loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2012 and full or partial year 2013
operating results for 94% of the pool. Moody's weighted average
conduit LTV is 78%, compared to 80% at Moody's last review.
Moody's conduit component excludes loans with structured credit
assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced and
troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted
average haircut of 12.3% 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 1.37X and 1.34X,
respectively, compared to 1.38X and 1.31X 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 25% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Escondido Village Shopping Center Loan ($16
million -- 11% of the pool), which is secured by an anchored
retail center located 31 miles from San Diego. Current occupancy
is 94% compared to 89% at prior review. The loan is expected to
payoff August 1, 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 87% and
1.16X, respectively, compared to 91% and 1.10X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the DDC Portfolio Rollup Loan ($12
million -- 8% of the pool), which is secured by a portfolio of six
retail, office and mixed-use properties located in Washington, DC.
At yearend 2013, the occupancy was 94%. The servicer expects the
loan to payoff August 5, 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
60% and 1.73X, respectively, compared to 60% and 1.70X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Diamondhead Building Loan ($10
million -- 6.6% of the pool), which is secured by an office
building in suburban New Jersey. Per the borrower, the refinance
is in process. Current occupancy is 93%, the same as at prior
review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 71% and 1.45X,
respectively, compared to 85% and 1.21X at the last review.


GRAMERCY REAL 2005-1: Moody's Affirms Caa2 Rating on Cl. H Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the
following notes issued by Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2005-1 Ltd.:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 11, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

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

Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2005-1 is a cash CRE CDO transaction,
whose reinvestment period ended in July 2010. The transaction is
backed by a portfolio of: i) whole loans and senior participations
(40.1% of the pool balance); ii) commercial mortgage backed
securities (CMBS) (36.8%); iii) mezzanine interests (11.7%); and
iv) B-notes and rake bonds (11.4%). As of the June 30, 2014
trustee report, the aggregate note balance of the transaction,
including income notes, has decreased to $570.1 million from $1.0
billion at issuance, with junior notes cancellation to the Class
E, Class F, Class G, and Class H notes and the principal paydown
directed to the senior most outstanding class of notes. The
paydown was the result of the combination of regular amortization,
resolution and sales of defaulted collateral, and the failing of
certain par value tests. In general, holding all key parameters
static, the junior note cancellations can result in higher
expected losses and longer weighted average lives on the senior
notes, while producing slightly lower expected losses on the
mezzanine and junior notes. However, this does not cause, in and
of itself, a downgrade or upgrade of any outstanding classes of
notes in this transaction.

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 reference obligations
it does not rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF
of 5560, compared to 5704 at last review. The current ratings on
the Moody's-rated reference obligations and the assessments of the
non-Moody's rated reference obligation follow: Aaa-Aa3 and 9.0%
compared to 8.4% at last review; A1-A3 and 10.7% compare to 9.4%
at last review; Baa1-Baa3 and 2.2% compared to 2.4% at last
review; Ba1-Ba3 and 2.4% compared to 2.2% at last review; B1-B3
and 8.6% compared to 8.3% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 67.1%
compared to 69.3% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.6 years, compared to 2.5 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 27.5%, compared to 32.8% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 14.0%, compared to 9.7% 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 March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes 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 notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for the rated notes,
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 notes are particularly sensitive to changes in the
recovery rate of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Holding all other key parameters static, reducing the recovery
rate by 10% would result in modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero to four notches downward (e.g. one notch down
implies a rating movement from Baa3 to Ba1). Increasing the
recovery rate by 10% would result in modeled rating movement on
the rated notes of zero to three notches upward (e.g. one notch up
implies a rating movement from Ba1 to Baa3).

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.


HARBOURVIEW CLO 2006-1: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes to BB-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-2, B, and D notes and affirmed its ratings on the class C
notes from HarbourView CLO 2006-1.  At the same time, S&P removed
the ratings on the class A-1, A-2, and B notes from CreditWatch,
where S&P placed them with positive implications on April 9, 2014.
HarbourView CLO 2006-1 is a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
transaction that closed in November 2006.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in Dec. 2013 and has
since paid down more than $105 million to the senior class A-1
notes.  The paydowns led to increased overcollateralization (O/C)
ratios indicated in the June 17, 2014, trustee report:

   -- The class A O/C increased to 127.23% from 121.36% in the
      March 15, 2012, trustee report, which S&P referenced in its
      previous rating actions.
   -- Class B increased to 117.46% from 113.31% in March 2012.
   -- Class C increased to 111.96% from 108.70% in March 2012.
   -- Class D increased to 107.55% from 104.96% in March 2012.

In addition, the transaction is holding approximately $1.28
million less in defaulted assets than in S&P's previous rating
action, and the weighted average life has decreased to 3.84 years.

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.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

HarbourView CLO 2006-1

                            Cash flow
       Previous             implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating               rating      cushion(i)  rating

A-1    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    3.51%        AAA (sf)
A-2    AA (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)    7.51%        AA+ (sf)
B      A- (sf)/Watch Pos    A+ (sf)     4.83%        A+ (sf)
C      BBB (sf)             BBB+ (sf)   1.74%        BBB (sf)
D      B+ (sf)              BB (sf)     1.15%        BB- (sf)

(i) The cash flow cushion is the excess of the tranche break-even
     default rate above the scenario default rate at the cash flow
     implied rating for a given class of rated notes.

RECOVERY RATE AND CORRELATION SENSITIVITY

In addition to S&P's base-case analysis, it generated scenarios in
which it made negative adjustments of 10% to the current
collateral pool's recovery rates relative to each tranche's
weighted average recovery rate.

S&P also generated other scenarios by adjusting the intra- and
inter-industry correlations to assess the current portfolio's
sensitivity to different correlation assumptions assuming the
correlation scenarios outlined.

Correlation
Scenario        Within industry (%)  Between industries (%)

Below base case               15.0                     5.0
Base case                     20.0                     7.5
Above base case               25.0                    10.0

                  Recovery   Correlation Correlation
       Cash flow  decrease   increase    decrease
       implied    implied    implied     implied     Final
Class  rating     rating     rating      rating      rating

A-1    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
B      A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)     AA- (sf)    A+ (sf)
C      BBB+ (sf)  BBB- (sf)  BBB (sf)    BBB+ (sf)   BBB (sf)
D      BB (sf)    B+ (sf)    BB- (sf)    BB+ (sf)    BB- (sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

To assess whether the current portfolio has sufficient diversity,
S&P biased defaults on the assets in the current collateral pool
with the highest spread and lowest base-case recoveries.

                    Spread        Recovery
       Cash flow    compression   compression
       implied      implied       implied       Final
Class  rating       rating        rating        rating

A-1    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2    AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA- (sf)      AA+ (sf)
B      A+ (sf)      A+ (sf)       BBB+ (sf)     A+ (sf)
C      BBB+ (sf)    BBB (sf)      BB+ (sf)      BBB (sf)
D      BB (sf)      BB- (sf)      CCC+ (sf)     BB- (sf)

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

HarbourView CLO 2006-1

                   Rating
Class         To           From

A-1           AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2           AA+ (sf)     AA (sf)/Watch Pos
B             A+ (sf)      A- (sf)/Watch Pos
D             BB- (sf)     B+ (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

HarbourView CLO 2006-1

Class         Rating

C             BBB (sf)


HEWETT'S ISLAND VI: Moody's Raises Rating on Class E Notes to Ba1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Hewett's Island CLO VI, Ltd.:

  $15,500,000 Class C Third Priority Senior Secured Deferrable
  Floating Rate Notes Due 2019, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously
  on January 8, 2014 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

  $15,500,000 Class D Fourth Priority Mezzanine Secured
  Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2019, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf);
  previously on January 8, 2014 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

  $16,000,000 Class E Fifth Priority Mezzanine Secured Deferrable
  Floating Rate Notes Due 2019 (current outstanding balance of
  $13,414,792), Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on January 8,
  2014 Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

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

  $50,000,000 Class A-R First Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Revolving Notes Due 2019 (current outstanding balance of
  $8,735,239.62), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on January 8,
  2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $255,500,000 Class A-T First Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Term Notes Due 2019 (current outstanding balance of
  $44,637,074.39), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on January 8,
  2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $27,500,000 Class B Second Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2019, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on January
  8, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Hewett's Island CLO VI, Ltd., issued in May 2007, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in June 2013.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's
overcollateralization ratios since the last rating action in
January 2014. The Class A Notes have been paid down by
approximately 20.0% or $60.0 million since the last rating action.
Based on the latest trustee report in July 2014, the
overcollateralization (OC) ratio for Class A/B, Class C , Class D
and Class E are reported at 167.29%, 140.38%, 120.93% and 107.98%
respectively, versus January 2014 levels of 138.77%, 125.02%,
113.74% and 105.51% respectively.

The deal has also benefited from an improvement in the credit
quality of the portfolio since the last rating action date. Based
on the trustee's July 2014 report, the weighted average rating
factor is currently 2261 compared to 2389 in January 2014.

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
February 2014.

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) 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.

6) Weighted average life: The notes' ratings are sensitive to the
weighted average life assumption of the portfolio, which could
lengthen owing to the manager's decision to participate in amend-
to-extend offerings. Moody's tested for a possible extension of
the actual weighted average life in its analysis. Life extension
can increase the default risk horizon and assumed cumulative
default probability of CLO collateral.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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% (1869)

Class A-T: 0

Class A-R: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: +2

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2803)

Class A-T: 0

Class A-R: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: -2

Class E: -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 February 2014

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 $135.3 million, no defaulted
par, a weighted average default probability of 13.09% (implying a
WARF of 2336), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of
49.13%, a diversity score of 37 and a weighted average spread of
2.88%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for CLO securities as published in "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs". In some cases, alternative recovery
assumptions may be considered based on the specifics of the
analysis of the CLO transaction. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


JP MORGAN 2000-C10: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class G Notes to 'C'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded one class and affirmed three
classes in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2000-C10 as
follows:

Cl. E, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. F, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Upgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on Class F was upgraded because of an increase in
credit support resulting from loan paydowns. The deal has paid
down 24% since Moody's last review.

The rating on Class E was 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 rating
on Class G was affirmed because the ratings are consistent with
Moody's expected loss. The rating on the IO Class X was affirmed
based on the credit performance (or the weighted average rating
factor or WARF) of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 0.9% of the
current balance, the same as at last review. Moody's base expected
loss plus realized losses is 8.5% of the original pooled balance,
the same as at 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 CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions" published in
July 2000 and "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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 4 compared to 5 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $16.5
million from $738.5 million at securitization. The certificates
are collateralized by seven mortgage loans ranging in size from 7%
to 33% of the pool. One loan, representing 16% of the pool, has
defeased and is secured by U.S. Government securities.

There are no loans currently on the master servicer's watchlist or
in special servicing. Thirty-two loans have been liquidated from
the pool, resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $62.3 million
(44% loss severity on average).

Moody's received full year 2012 and 2013 operating results for 91%
and 100% of the pool, respectively. Moody's weighted average
conduit LTV is 40% compared to 51% 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) for the
single tenant office building conduit loan. Moody's value reflects
a weighted average capitalization rate of 10.2%. 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 60% of the pool. The largest
loan is the Pavilion East Loan ($5.4 million -- 32.9% of the
pool), which is secured by a 171,969 square foot (SF) anchored
retail center located in Richardson, Texas. Major tenants include
Richardson Bike Mart (20% of the NRA -- lease expiration December
31, 2017), Sprouts Grocers (17% of the NRA -- lease expiration
October 2016) and TJ Maxx (17% of the NRA - lease expiration
October 2016). Spouts Grocers and TJ Maxx sublease their space
from Albertson's, a supermarket retailer, which vacated the
property in 2006. The property was 95% leased as of December 2013
compared to 88% as of December 2012. Property financial
performance has increased and the loan has amortized 51% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 31% and 3.49X,
respectively, compared to 36% and 2.99X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Pavilion West Loan ($2.4 million
-- 14.4% of the pool), which is secured by an 84,250 SF retail
center located in Dallas, Texas. The anchor tenant is 24 Hour
Fitness (38% of the NRA -- lease expiration September 2016). The
property was 88% leased as of December 2013 compared to 89% as of
December 2012. Property performance has been stable and the loan
has amortized 50% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 27% and 4.98X, respectively, compared to 30% and 3.93X at
last review.

The third largest loan is the Eckerd - Media Loan ($2.1 million --
12.5% of the pool), which is secured by a freestanding Eckerd Drug
store in Media Borough, Pennsylvania. The loan is subject to a 20-
year lease with multiple five-year renewal options. The loan has
amortized 52% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 51% and 2.13X, compared to 57% and 1.91X at last review.


JP MORGAN 2003-CIBC6: Moody's Cuts Cl. X-1 Secs. Rating to 'B2'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings of 11 classes and
downgraded the rating on one class of J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial
Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2003-CIBC6 as follows:

Cl. C, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Upgraded to A1
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Upgraded to A3
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed Caa1
(sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Downgraded to
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. N, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. X-1, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Sep 6, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the seven P&I classes (Class C, D, E, F, G, H and
J) 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 remaining four P&I classes were affirmed
because the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO Class (Class X-1) was downgraded due to the
decline in the credit performance of its reference classes
resulting from principal paydowns of higher quality reference
classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 12.7% of
the current balance compared to 12.0% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.7% of the
original pooled balance, the same as at 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 8, compared to 13 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 14, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate pooled certificate balance has decreased by 89% to $119
million from $1.04 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 21 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 24% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 82% of
the pool. Three loans, constituting 7% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

Eight loans, constituting 33% 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.

Ten loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $13 million (for an average loss
severity of 32%). Three loans, constituting 15% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the 2 Executive Plaza Loan ($7.4 million -- 6.2% of the
pool), which is secured by a 102,000 square foot (SF) office
building located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The loan transferred
to special servicing in January 2013 due to pending maturity
default. Foreclosure was filed in May 2013 and the loan became REO
in October 2013. After several tenants vacated at their lease
expirations in 2013, the property was only 28% leased as of April
2014 compared to 79% leased in January 2013. The special servicer
indicated they are working to lease up the property.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Advance Office
Building ($6.5 million -- 5.5% of the pool), which is secured by a
231,000 SF office building located in Southfield, Michigan. The
loan transferred to special servicing in March 2013 due to
imminent maturity default and a receiver was appointed in November
2013. The property was 71% leased as of September 2013. The
special servicer indicated that the most recent Borrower proposed
resolution was rejected and they are now moving forward with the
foreclosure process.

The remaining specially serviced loan is secured by two cross-
collateralized and cross-defaulted manufactured housing
properties. Moody's has also assumed a high default probability
for two poorly performing loans, constituting 10% of the pool.
Moody's estimates an aggregate loss of $12.8 million from these
specially serviced and troubled loans.

As of the most recent remittance date, the pool has experienced
cumulative interest shortfalls totaling $1.5 million and the
shortfalls currently reach Class F. The majority of these interest
shortfalls are a result of reimbursements of advances to the
master servicer associated with a previously modified loan. As of
the July 2014 remittance statement only $27,551 remains to be
reimbursed. Moody's anticipates that once these advances have been
completely reimbursed, interest shortfalls will begin to be
recovered and the shortfalls associated with the two investment
grade classes (Class F and G) will be recovered in the next two to
three months.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 87% of the
pool,and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 93% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 73% compared to
74% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
defeased 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 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.33X and 1.54X,
respectively, compared to 1.43X and 1.48X 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 50% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the International Paper Office Loan ($28.8 million
-- 24.2%), which is secured by a 214,000 SF office building
located in Memphis, Tennessee. The building is one of three
identically designed buildings that make up the International
Place office park. The collateral is 100% leased to International
Paper Company (senior unsecured rating Baa2, stable outlook)
through February 2027. International Paper has utilized the
International Place office park as its headquarters since 1987.
The loan has amortized 18% since securitization and matures in
July 2017. Moody's analysis is based on a lit/dark analysis due to
concerns about the property's single tenancy. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 86% and 1.16X, respectively, compared to 88% and
1.14X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Shelbyville Road Plaza Loan ($17.7
million -- 14.9%), which is secured by a 250,000 SF community
shopping center located in Louisville, Kentucky. The property was
previously on the watchlist due to tenant vacancies as Linens-n-
Things, Circuit City and Border's all vacated the property since
December 2008. Together these tenants originally leased 34% of the
collateral's NRA. The property was removed from the watchlist in
September 2013 after the borrower was able to lease the vacated
Linens-n-Things space to Nike Factory Store, and the former
Circuit City space to Nordstrom Rack. The former Border's space
remains vacant.. The property was 82% leased as of April 2014
compared to 85% leased in March 2013 and 70% in June 2012. The
loan is fully amortizing and matures in March 2022. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 54% and 1.84X, respectively, compared to 60%
and 1.66X at last review.

The third largest conduit loan is the Amazon Distribution Center
Loan ($12.5 million -- 10.5%), which is secured by a 589,000 SF
industrial property located in Fernley, Nevada. The center is
fully leased to Amazon.com, Inc. (senior unsecured rating Baa1,
stable outlook) through August 2014. The master servicer indicated
the Borrower contacted them in May 2014 to inform them of Amazon's
intent to extend its lease for 5 years. The loan has an
anticipated repayment date of August 2014. Moody's analysis is
based on a lit/dark analysis due to concerns about the property's
single tenancy. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 59% and 1.84X,
respectively, compared to 64% and 1.60X at last review.


JP MORGAN 2004-PNC1: Fitch Affirms 'CCCsf' Rating on Cl. F Secs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded two and affirmed 12 classes of J.P.
Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., series 2004-
PNC1 commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrades reflect the improved credit enhancement and the
ability of the classes to withstand losses in a stressed scenario.
Fitch modeled losses of 17.7% of the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 6.6%, including $49.6
million (4.5% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date. There are 20 loans remaining in the pool; Fitch has
designated nine loans (69.5%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which
includes four specially serviced assets (24%). One loan (11.8%) is
currently defeased.

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 88.5% to $111.2 million from
$1.1 billion at issuance. Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes H through NR.

The largest contributor to Fitch's modeled losses is an 180,000
square foot (sf) suburban office property (13.1%) located in
Farmington Hills, MI. The property is solely occupied by Jervis B
Webb Co whose lease expired in September 2017. The loan
transferred to the special servicer in October 2013 due to
imminent payment default after the borrower was unable to obtain
sufficient financing prior to the April 2014 maturity date.

The second largest contributor to expected losses and the third
largest in the pool is a 146,279 square foot anchored retail
center (8.9%) located in Springdale, OH. The property is 100%
occupied by three tenants, the largest of which has notified the
borrower that they will not be renewing their lease. Average rents
at the property remain below market as the borrower has previously
given rent concessions in order to maintain occupancy.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a 47,367
square foot (sf) medical center (4.6%) located in Corona, CA. The
property is not producing sufficient income to meet its debt
service obligations and occupancy was 28% as of October 2013. Per
a November inspection, the third floor is damaged due to vandalism
while occupied units remain in good condition.

Rating Sensitivities

In order to consider upgrades as the pool is very concentrated,
Fitch ran additional stresses on the specially serviced loans and
two of the four largest loans in the pool.

The largest loan in the pool is secured by a 320,198 sf suburban
office building located in Overland Park, KS. The property is 100%
occupied by Swiss Re America Holding Co who has a lease that
expires in December 2018; which is before the loan's anticipated
repayment date in 2019. Fitch took an additional stress on the
loan to match vacancy with that of the submarket.

Additionally, Fitch applied a further stress to the previously
mentioned second largest contributor to Fitch model loss. The
stress on the loan, which is the fourth largest in the pool,
reflects the possibility for significant deterioration in the
performance of the loan.

The ratings on the class A-1A through E notes are expected to be
stable as the credit enhancement remains high. The class F and G
notes may be subject to further downgrades as losses are realized.

Fitch upgrades the following classes:

-- $28.8 million class B to 'AAAsf' from 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $17.8 million class D to 'BBBsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch affirms the following classes:

-- $16.5 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13.7 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11 million class E at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $16.5 million class F at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $11 million class G at 'CCsf'; RE 25%;
-- $10.8 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%.


JP MORGAN 2005-LDP5: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Rating on Class Q Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage
Series Corp. commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series
2005-LDP5.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations are the result of stable overall pool performance
since Fitch's last review. Fitch modeled losses of 9.7% for the
remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total
7.6%, including $23 million (0.5% of the original pool balance) in
realized losses to date. Fitch has designated 32 loans (18.5%) as
Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes four specially serviced
assets (6.6%).

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 27.5% to $3.14 billion from
$4.33 billion at issuance. Thirteen loans (5.2%) are defeased.
Interest shortfalls totaling $16.1 million are currently affecting
classes L through NR.

Rating Sensitivities

Ratings on all investment grade classes are expected to remain
stable and no near-term rating actions are anticipated. Future
downgrades to class G are likely if pool performance deteriorates.
In addition, the distressed classes (rated below 'B') may be
subject to further rating actions as losses are realized.

The largest contributor to expected losses is a loan secured by a
526,245 square foot (sf) Class A corporate headquarters campus
complex located in Las Colinas, Texas (3.1% of the pool). The loan
was transferred to special servicing in March 2012 due to covenant
default as a result of reserve funding shortfalls in the amount of
$1.5 million. The borrower has submitted a loan modification
proposal which is under review by the special servicer. The
property is 100% leased to NEC Corporation of America until March
2016, who in turn subleases the space to various tenants.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a 706,684 sf
regional enclosed mall located in Hanover, MA (2.7%). The property
became a real estate owned asset (REO) in February 2010 through
foreclosure. Anchor tenants include WalMart, JC Penney and Dick's
Sporting Goods. The servicer reported property occupancy was 97%
as of first quarter (1Q) 2014.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is the Atlantic
Development Portfolio loan (2.7%), which is secured by five office
complexes and two industrial properties located in Somerset and
Warren, NJ. The properties have suffered from reduced revenue due
to lower occupancy as a result of tenants vacating upon or prior
to lease expirations. The servicer reported occupancy as of 1Q
2014 was 73%, compared to 97% at issuance. Servicer reported
second quarter 2013 debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) was 1.0x,
compared to 0.8x at YE2012 and 0.81x at YE2011.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $97.1 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1.4 billion class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22.7 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $257.3 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $419.7 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $299 million class A-J at 'AAsf'; Outlook to Stable from
    Negative;
-- $26.2 million class B at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $73.4 million class C at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $52.5 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $36.7 million class G at 'B-sf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $52.5 million class H at 'CCCsf'; RE 95%.
-- $42 million class J at 'CCCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $63 million class K at 'CCsf'; RE 0%.
-- $26.2 million class L at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $15.7 million class M at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $15.7 million class N at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $5.2 million class O at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $5.2 million class P at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $10.5 million class Q at 'Csf'; RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2FL and A-2 certificates have paid in full.

Fitch does not rate the class NR, HG-1, HG-2, HG-3, HG-4 and HG-5
certificates. Fitch previously withdrew the ratings on the
interest-only class X-1 and X-2 certificates.


JP MORGAN 2007-CIBC20: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 5 Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings of 18 classes
in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-CIBC20
as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded
to A2 (sf)

Cl. A-MFX, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded
to A2 (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded to
B3 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. X-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the four 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 the 12 below investment grade P&I classes were
affirmed because the ratings are consistent with expected recovery
of principal and interest from liquidated and troubled loans.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 10.1% of
the current balance compared to 11.2% at Moody's prior review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 13.0% of
the original pooled balance compared to 13.5% at the 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 may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may
cause an upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns
or amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 compared to 22 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 14, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 23% to $1.96
billion from $2.54 billion at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by 102 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 15% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) representing 55% of the pool. The pool contains one
loan, representing 0.9% of the pool, that has an investment grade
structured credit assessment. One loan, representing 0.3% of the
pool has defeased and is secured by US Government securities.

Forty-five loans, representing 30% 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.

Twenty-five loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $133 million (55% loss severity on
average). Six loans, representing 6.4% of the pool, are in special
servicing. The largest specially serviced loan is the Clark Tower
Loan ($60.1 million -- 3.1% of the pool), which is secured by a
34-story, 657,245 square foot (SF) office building located in
Memphis, Tennessee. The property was 68% leased as of April 2014
compared to 66% as of December 2012. The loan was transferred to
special servicing in September 2013 due to imminent payment
default. The special servicer has approved a note sale. The
servicer has not recognized an appraisal reduction for the loan,
while Moody's estimates a $25 million loss.

The remaining five specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $79.3 million
loss for the specially serviced loans (60% expected loss on
average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 26 poorly
performing loans representing 20% of the pool and has estimated an
aggregate $76.8 million loss (19% expected loss based on a 55%
probability of default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full-year 2012 operating results for 95% of the
pool and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 92% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 106%, the same
as at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans
and specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow
(NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 11% 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 1.29X and 0.99X,
respectively, compared to 1.30X and 1.00X 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 loan with a structured credit assessment is the 1564 Broadway
Loan ($18.0 million -- 0.9% of the pool), which is secured by a
52,657 SF mixed use property located in Times Square in New York,
New York. Moody's structured credit assessment and stressed DSCR
are a2 (sca.pd) and 2.16X, respectively, compared to baa2 (sca.pd)
and 1.55X at the last review.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 35% of the pool
balance. The largest loan is the Retail Portfolio Loan (formerly
Centro -- New Plan Pool I; $294.0 million -- 15% of the pool),
which is secured by a portfolio of 18 retail properties that are
cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted and total 3.1 million SF.
The properties are located in 12 states, with the largest
concentrations in Georgia (20%), Florida (14%) and Texas (13%).
The portfolio was 93% leased as of January 2014 compared to 91% as
of December 2012. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 110% and
0.88X, respectively, compared to 115% and 0.84X at the last
review.

The second largest loan is the Gurnee Mills Loan ($246 million --
12.6% of the pool), which is a pari-passu interest in a $321.0
million first mortgage loan. The loan is secured by the borrower's
interest in a 1.8 million SF regional mall located in Gurnee,
Illinois. The mall's major tenants include Sears, Bass Pro Shops
Outdoor World and Kohl's. The property was 95% leased as of
December 2013 compared to 94% leased as of December 2012. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 122% and 0.78X, respectively, compared
to 124% and 0.76X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the North Hills Mall Loan ($141.5
million -- 7.2% of the pool), which is secured by the borrower's
interest in a 586,000 SF mixed use property that includes Main
Street outdoor retail, an office component, a 14-screen movie
theater, JC Penney, and two bank outparcels. The property is
situated within a mixed-use development that includes residential
condominiums, commercial and hotel properties, a retirement
community and recreational amenities. The property was 97% leased
as of March 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 141% and
0.69X, respectively.


JP MORGAN 2008-C2: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on Cl. C Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 21 classes of J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, series 2008-C2.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations reflect sufficient credit enhancement relative to
Fitch expected losses. Fitch modeled losses of 18.9% of the
remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total
24.9%, including $150.3 million (12.9% of the original pool
balance) in realized losses to date primarily associated with the
Dos Lagos retail loan disposition. Fitch has designated 22 loans
(47.7%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes six specially
serviced assets (21.8%).

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by approximately 35% to $760
million from $1.16 billion at issuance. There are 64 loans
remaining of the original 80. Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes A-M through T.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the Westin
Portfolio, the current pool's largest loan (15.3%). The loan is
secured by two Westin resort hotels: the 487-room Westin La Paloma
in Tucson, AZ, with a 27-hole Jack Nicklaus golf course and spa,
and the 416-room oceanfront Westin Hilton Head, in Hilton Head,
SC, which features a Westin Heavenly Spa, the first 'Heavenly Spa'
opened in the U.S. Both resorts offer numerous restaurants, pools
and over 100,000 sf of meeting space. The loan, which transferred
to special servicing soon after securitization (due to a borrower
bankruptcy), fell short of performance expectations as a result of
the recession and its impact on the hotels' performance. In early
2012, a loan modification was completed which required the newly
formed sponsor, Southwest Value Partners, to timely perform the
property improvement plans (PIP) agreed upon in the reorganization
and approved by Westin.

Recent press indicates the sponsor has completed significant
renovations on both properties over the last few years, and the
properties appear attractive and well kept. The sponsor continues
to work on stabilizing performance and growing room revenue
through Westin's strong reservation system. The franchise
agreement with the Westin Hilton Head expires on 12/31/2019, and
the agreement with Westin La Paloma expires on 12/31/2028.

Updated valuations for the properties have not been made
available; additionally, an accurate value may be more difficult
to obtain as the subject properties have not been at full
operation while undergoing renovations, and certain terms per the
bankruptcy plan are being contested by the lender and operator.
Fitch modeled a conservative value in its analysis, but took into
account the significant capital investment both properties
recently received, as well as the continued strong performance of
the U.S. lodging industry. Fitch will closely monitor any
performance updates including updated valuations as it becomes
available.

The next contributor to expected losses is a specially serviced
loan (3.3%) secured by a 252,759 sf portfolio of three office-flex
properties in Norcross, GA. A receiver was appointed in late 2013,
and the asset became real estate owned (REO) in early 2014. The
special servicer is pursuing a stabilization strategy with a focus
on leasing up vacant space. The subject's market remains weak
however, and competition for tenants is high among landlords.

Rating Sensitivities

The Rating Outlooks for classes A-4, A-4FL, A-SB, and A-1A remain
Negative based on a lack of updated values for certain specially
serviced loans. Additionally, dispositions from previously
liquidated loans have eroded credit support to the lower classes
in the trust. Downgrades are possible if expected losses increase
or if these classes are affected by repeated interest shortfalls.

Fitch affirms the following Classes and Outlooks as indicated:

-- $336.3 million class A-4 at 'Asf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $137.5 million class A-4FL at 'Asf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $34.2 million class A-SB at 'Asf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $53.5 million class A-1A at 'Asf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $116.6 million class A-M at 'CCsf'; RE 50%;
-- $61.2 million class A-J at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $14.6 million class B at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $7 million class C at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class D at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class E at 'Dsf';; RE 0%;
-- $0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 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%;
-- $0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class T at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.


JP MORGAN 2012-HSBC: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Class E Secs.
-------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Inc. has confirmed the ratings of J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-HSBC, as follows:

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

All trends are Stable.

The rating confirmations reflect the transaction's continued
stable performance since issuance.  The collateral consists of a
$300 million first mortgage loan secured by a 30-story, 864,000 sf
Class A office tower in Midtown Manhattan known as HSBC Tower.
The property spans an entire block of Fifth Avenue between 39th
and 40th Streets and serves as HSBC's North American headquarters.
HSBC is currently rated AA (low) by DBRS.

In addition to the first mortgage loan, there is mezzanine
financing of $100 million.  The trust loan has a ten-year term,
with an initial interest-only period of five years.  As of YE2013
reporting, the loan had debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.19
times (x).  Future performance is expected to continue to improve,
as the last remaining tenant free rent periods expired at the end
of Q1 2013.  The partial year reporting from Q1 2014 reflects this
improvement as the DSCR was 1.41x.

According to the March 2014 rent roll, the subject was 95.9%
occupied, with a weighted-average rental rate of $56.41 per square
foot (psf).  The largest tenant is HSBC, occupying 59% of the net
rentable area (NRA) across various spaces at the property.  HSBC's
lease expires in April 2020, approximately two years before loan
maturity, representing significant refinance risk if the tenant
vacates the property; however, DBRS believes that HSBC will remain
at the property past its lease expiration date due to the fact
that it spent $25 million renovating its space and the space
serves as its North American headquarters.  HSBC has two ten-year
extension options at 95% of fair market rent.

In the event that HSBC declines to exercise its lease extension
option(s), there is significant rental revenue growth potential,
as it currently pays a weighted-average rental rate of $39.30 psf
on its Class B office space located on Floor Two through Floor 11.
According to the Q2 2014 CoStar report, rental rates for Class B
office properties in the Grand Central submarket were quoted at
$53.50 psf.

Along with HSBC, there are three other investment grade-rated
tenants in occupancy at the subject.  These include Man Group, VTB
Capital and Staples. Combined, the four investment grade-rated
tenants account for 72.9% of the NRA and 66.5% of the net rental
income.


JP MORGAN 2013-C14: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 13 classes of J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust (JPMBB) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2013-C14.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations are the result of stable performance of the
underlying pool since issuance. As of the July 2014 distribution
date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by
1.1% to $1.14 billion from $1.15 billion at issuance.  There are
currently no delinquent or specially serviced loans.  Thirty-one
(85% of the pool balance) out of the 45 loans in the pool reported
year end (YE), trailing 12-month (TTM), or partial year 2013 or
2014 financials.

The largest loan in the pool is secured by 308,190 square feet
(sf) of in-line space within the Meadows Mall, a 945,043 sf
regional mall located in Las Vegas NV. The four anchors -
Dillard's, Macy's, J.C. Penney, and Sears - own their
improvements. The largest collateral tenants are Forever 21 (5.5%
of the net rentable area [NRA]), Victoria Secret (3.9% NRA), and
Hollister (2.4% NRA). As of YE December 2013 occupancy reported at
98.7%, and in-line tenant sales reported at $306 per square foot
(psf) compared to $392 psf at YE 2012. The net operating income
(NOI) debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) reported at 1.59x for YE
2013, compared to 1.55x at issuance. The subject A-1 note is parri
passu with a $53.2 million A-2 note that is included in the JPMBB
2014-C18 transaction.

The second largest loan in the pool is secured by the Spirit
Portfolio, which is composed of 26 properties (22 retail, two
office, and two industrial) totaling 1.6 million sf. The
properties are located across 13 states and contain 19 different
tenants. The largest property is the 573,000 sf J. Jill
Distribution Center (36.8% portfolio NRA) located in Tilton, NH.
The portfolio occupancy remains unchanged from issuance at 100%.
The third largest loan in the pool is secured by 589 Fifth Avenue,
a 169,486 sf office building located in midtown Manhattan, NY. The
servicer reported occupancy at 90% as of June 2014, compared to
96.7% at issuance. The office tenants consist entirely of diamond
dealers, while the entire 57,000 sf retail portion of the property
is leased to H&M (33.6% NRA) through July 2033. The YE 2013 NOI
DSCR reported at 1.29x, which only reflects partial year rental
revenue from H&M. H&M's starting rent of approximately $12.7
million per year commenced on July 1, 2013, and increases by
approximately 3% every three years. The subject A-2 note is
interest only, and is parri passu with an identical $87.5 million
A-1 note that is included in the JPMBB 2013-C13 transaction.

Rating Sensitivity

All classes maintain Stable Outlooks. Due to the recent issuance
of the transaction and stable performance, Fitch does not foresee
positive or negative ratings migration until a material economic
or asset level event changes the transaction's portfolio-level
metrics. Additional information on rating sensitivity is available
in the report 'J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities
Trust 2013-C14' (May 2, 2014.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $67.8 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $278.3 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $75 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $288.5 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $81.8 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $80.4 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $871.9 million * class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76.1 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $45.9 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $53.1 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11.5 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $12.9 million class F at 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $23 million class G at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

* Notional amount and interest-only.

Fitch does not rate the class NR or class X-C certificates. The
class X-B certificate was withdrawn from the transaction prior to
closing.


JP MORGAN 2013-C14: Moody's Affirms 'B2' Rating on Cl. G Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 13 classes
in JPMBB 2013-C14, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2013-C14 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2013 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the 12 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 rating on the IO class was 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 2.6% of the
current balance. The deal has not experienced any realized losses.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is 2.6% of the
original pooled 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
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 21, the same as at securitization.

Deal Performance

As of the July 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 1% to $1.14 billion
from $1.15 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 45 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 10% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 61% of
the pool. The pool does not currently contain any defeased loans,
loans with structured credit assessments, loans on the master
servicer's watchlist, specially serviced loans or liquidated
loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 and full or partial year 2013
operating results for 100% of the pool. Moody's weighted average
conduit LTV is 99% compared to 103% at securitization. Moody's net
cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 6% to the
most recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.7%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.68X and 1.09X,
respectively, compared to 1.59X and 1.02X 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 26% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Meadows Mall Loan ($107 million -- 9.5% of the
pool), which represents a pari passu interest in a $161 million
first mortgage. The loan is secured by the borrower's interest in
a 945,000 square foot (SF) regional mall located five miles west
of the Strip in Las Vegas, Nevada. The mall is anchored by
Dillard's, JC Penney, Sears and Macy's. In-line tenant sales were
approximately $405 per square foot (PSF) in 2013 compared to $418
PSF in 2012. The total mall was 99% leased as of December 2013
compared to 96% as of April 2013. The in-line space was 91% leased
as of December 2013. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 104% and
0.99X, respectively, compared to 106% and 0.97X at securitization.

The second largest loan is the Spirit Portfolio Loan ($101 million
-- 8.9% of the pool), which is secured by a portfolio of 26
properties including retail, industrial, office, and mixed-use.
The collateral is located in 13 different states. The top five
states by allocated loan balance are Illinois (19%), New Hampshire
(13%), Texas, (12%), North Carolina (11%), and Indiana (11%).
Twenty-five of the 26 properties are single tenant properties,
while the other has two tenants. The portfolio was fully leased as
of December 2013, the same as at securitization. Several tenants
lease more than one property: LA Fitness leases two properties
(12% of base rent); CVS leases four properties (7% of base rent);
Walgreens leases two properties (5% of base rent); Ferguson
Enterprises leases three properties (3% of base rent); and Tractor
Supply leases two properties (3% of base rent). Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 90% and 1.16X, respectively, compared to 91% and
1.15X at securitization.

The third largest loan is the 589 Fifth Avenue Loan ($87.5 million
-- 7.7% of the pool), which represents a pari passu interest in a
$175M first mortgage. The collateral is a 17-story, 173,000 SF
office and retail property located near the Diamond District in
New York City. The entire retail portion is leased to H&M through
July 2033. The office portion is mostly leased to jeweler tenants.
No office tenant accounts for more than 5% of the net rentable
area. The property was 94% leased as of February 19, 2014 compared
to 97% as of May 1, 2013. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 100%
and 0.88X, respectively, the same as at securitization.


JP MORGAN 2014-C22: Moody's Rates Class UHP Certs '(P)Ba3'
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
seven classes of CMBS securities, issued by JPMBB Commercial
Mortgage Securities Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2014-C22.

Cl. A-1, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3A1, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3A2, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. UHP, Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The Certificates are collateralized by 76 fixed rate loans secured
by 120 properties. The ratings are based on the collateral and the
structure of the transaction.

Moody's CMBS ratings methodology combines both commercial real
estate and structured finance analysis. Based on commercial real
estate analysis, Moody's determines the credit quality of each
mortgage loan and calculates an expected loss on a loan specific
basis. Under structured finance, the credit enhancement for each
certificate typically depends on the expected frequency, severity,
and timing of future losses. Moody's also considers a range of
qualitative issues as well as the transaction's structural and
legal aspects.

The credit risk of loans is determined primarily by two factors:
1) Moody's assessment of the probability of default, which is
largely driven by each loan's DSCR, and 2) Moody's assessment of
the severity of loss upon a default, which is largely driven by
each loan's LTV ratio.

The Moody's Actual DSCR of 1.44X is higher than the 2007
conduit/fusion transaction average of 1.31X, but is lower than
other conduit/fusion transactions rated by Moody's during 2014.
The Moody's Stressed DSCR is .94X and is in-line with CMBS 2.0
transactions.

Moody's Trust LTV ratio of 114.8% is above the 2007 conduit/fusion
transaction average of 110.6%, and higher than pools securitized
during 2014. There are two loans in the pool with subordinate
debt, including two with mezzanine debt. With the subordinate debt
the Moody's total debt LTV ratio rises to 115.5%. Additionally,
there is one loan (U-Haul Self Storage Portfolio) structured as a
non-pooled single-class rake existing inside of the trust.
However, this non-pooled rake represents pari passu interest. A
second pari passu interest which is pooled, is also contributed to
the trust. Moody's LTV ratio only includes the pooled debt in the
transaction. The pari passu non-pooled rake is in the amount of
$15.099 million. Moody's rating (Ba3) considers the thickness of
the rake in its expected loss analysis.

Moody's also considers both loan level diversity and property
level diversity when selecting a ratings approach. With respect to
loan level diversity, the pool's loan level Herfindahl score is
31. The transaction loan level diversity profile is favorable
compared to most conduit and fusion transactions. With respect to
property level diversity, the pool's property level Herfindahl
score is similarly positive at 35.

Moody's also grades properties on a scale of 1 to 5 (best to
worst) and considers those grades when assessing the likelihood of
debt payment. The factors considered include property age, quality
of construction, location, market, and tenancy. The pool's
weighted average property quality grade is 2.42, which is higher
than the 2.3 average quality grade for pools.

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

Moody's analysis employs the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v2.64
which derives credit enhancement levels based on an aggregation of
adjusted loan level proceeds derived from Moody's loan level DSCR
and LTV ratios. Major adjustments to determining proceeds include
loan structure, property type, sponsorship and diversity. Moody's
analysis also uses the CMBS IO calculator version 1.0 which
references the following inputs to calculate the proposed IO
rating based on the published methodology: original and current
bond ratings and credit estimates; original and current bond
balances grossed up for losses for all bonds the IO(s)
reference(s) within the transaction; and IO type corresponding to
an IO type as defined in the published methodology.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: If Moody's value of the
collateral used in determining the initial rating were decreased
by 5%, 15%, and 23%, the model-indicated rating for the currently
rated Aaa classes would be Aaa, Aa1, and Aa2, respectively.
Parameter Sensitivities are not intended to measure how the rating
of the security might migrate over time; rather they are designed
to provide a quantitative calculation of how the initial rating
might change if key input parameters used in the initial rating
process differed. The analysis assumes that the deal has not aged.
Parameter Sensitivities only reflect the ratings impact of each
scenario from a quantitative/model-indicated standpoint.
Qualitative factors are also taken into consideration in the
ratings process, so the actual ratings that would be assigned in
each case could vary from the information presented in the
Parameter Sensitivity analysis.

These ratings: (a) are based solely on information in the public
domain and/or information communicated to Moody's by the issuer at
the date it was prepared and such information has not been
independently verified by Moody's; (b) must be construed solely as
a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact or an offer,
invitation, inducement or recommendation to purchase, sell or hold
any securities or otherwise act in relation to the issuer or any
other entity or in connection with any other matter. Moody's does
not guarantee or make any representation or warranty as to the
correctness of any information, rating or communication relating
to the issuer. Moody's shall not be liable in contract, tort,
statutory duty or otherwise to the issuer or any other third party
for any loss, injury or cost caused to the issuer or any other
third party, in whole or in part, including by any negligence (but
excluding fraud, dishonesty and/or willful misconduct or any other
type of liability that by law cannot be excluded) on the part of,
or any contingency beyond the control of Moody's, or any of its
employees or agents, including any losses arising from or in
connection with the procurement, compilation, analysis,
interpretation, communication, dissemination, or delivery of any
information or rating relating to the issuer.

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 may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may
cause an upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns
or amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.


KKR CLO 9: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating on $33.7MM Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to five
classes of Notes to be issued by KKR CLO 9 Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$306,250,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$67,750,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$23,500,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$32,500,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$33,750,000 Class E Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

The Class A 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.

KKR CLO 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, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans
and unsecured loans. The portfolio is expected to be at least 75%
ramped as of the closing date.

KKR Financial Advisors II, 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.

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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 50

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2850

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.75%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.0 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
February 2014.

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 an 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), holding all other factors equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2850 to 3278)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2850 to 3705)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -3

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. Moody's assigned
this V Score in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash-flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009, available on
www.moodys.com.

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.


LB COMMERCIAL 1998-C4: Moody's Cuts Rating on Cl. X Secs. to Caa2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings of two classes,
affirmed three classes and downgraded one class in LB Commercial
Trust Series 1998-C4 as follows:

Cl. G, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. H, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. J, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013
Affirmed Caa1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on Classes H and J were upgraded because of an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns as well as
increase in the share of the pool represented by defeasance. The
deal has paid down 19% since Moody's last review.

The rating on Class G was affirmed because the credit enhancement
level for is sufficient to maintain its current rating. The
ratings on Classes K and L were affirmed because their ratings are
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO class, Class X, was downgraded due to a
decline in the credit performance of its reference classes
resulting from principal pay downs of higher quality reference
classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 6.1% of the
current balance compared to 5.7% at last review. Moody's base
expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.2% of the original
pooled balance compared to 2.3% at 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 CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions" published in
July 2000, "Moody's Approach to Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit
Transactions" published in September 2000 and "Commercial Real
Estate Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating Credit Tenant Lease
Financings" published in November 2011.

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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 15 compared to 19 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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.

In rating this transaction, also used a Gaussian copula model,
incorporated in its public CDO rating model CDOROMv2.13-1 to
generate a portfolio loss distribution to for the credit tenant
lease (CTL) component of the transaction.

Deal Performance

As of the July 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 97% to $55.9
million from $2.03 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 36 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 12% of the pool. Ten loans, representing 17% of the pool,
have defeased and are secured by U.S. Government securities. The
pool contains a CTL component, representing 29% of the pool.

There are five loans 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 Moody's ongoing monitoring
of a transaction, Moody's reviews the watchlist to assess which
loans have material issues that could impact performance.

Twenty-seven loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting
in an aggregate realized loss of $42.1 million (30% loss severity
on average). There are three loans that are currently in special
servicing. Moody's has estimated an aggregate $1.1 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (29% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2012 and 2013 operating results for
100% of the conduit pool and partial 2014 results for 97% of the
conduit. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with credit
assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced and
troubled loans. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 67%, the
same as at last review. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a
weighted average haircut of 15% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 10.3%.

Moody's actual and stressed DSCRs are 1.29X and 1.90X,
respectively, compared to 1.35X and 2.04X at last review. 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 28% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Pinnacle Center Loan ($6.4 million -- 11.5% of
the pool), which is secured by a 230,000 square foot (SF) retail
property located in Thornton, Colorado. As of March 2014 the
property was 87% leased compared to 88% at last review. The
largest tenant is Hobby Lobby, which leases 21% the net rentable
area (NRA) through June 2015. This loan has amortized 24% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 78% and 1.38X,
respectively, compared to 86% and 1.26X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Chesterfield Meadows Shopping
Center Loan ($5.2 million -- 9.3% of the pool) which is secured by
a 70,000 SF retail center located in Richmond, Virginia. As of
March 2014 the center was 81% leased, the same as at last review.
This loan has amortized 25% since securitization. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 74% and 1.46X, respectively, compared to 76% and
1.43X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Cineplex Multiplex Loan ($3.9
million -- 7.0% of the pool) which is secured by a 48,217 SF
cinema located in Huntington, New York. This fully amortizing loan
has paid down 40% since securitization. To reflect the single
tenant risk, Moody's applied a lit-dark approach to this loan.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 61% and 1.96X, respectively,
compared to 51% and 2.31X at last review.

The CTL component includes 13 loans secured by properties leased
under bondable leases. The largest CTL exposures are Sweetbay
Supermarket ($6.8 million, 12.2% of the pool; parent Delhaize
America, LLC; Moody's senior unsecured rating Baa3; stable
outlook), CVS/Caremark Corp. ($4.1 million, 5.0% of the pool;
Moody's senior unsecured rating Baa1; stable outlook); Kmart
(Sears Holding Corp.) $2.8 million, 4.9% of the pool; Moody's
senior secured rating Caa1; stable outlook, Walgreen Co. ($1.2
million, 2.1% of the pool; Moody's senior unsecured rating Baa1;
stable outlook), Rite Aid Corporation ($814,000, 1.5% of the pool;
Moody's senior unsecured rating Caa1; stable outlook).

The bottom-dollar weighted average rating factor (WARF) for the
CTL component is 1,285 compared to 1,701 at last review. WARF is a
measure of the overall quality of a pool of diverse credits. The
bottom-dollar WARF is a measure of the default probability within
the pool.


LB COMMERCIAL 1999-C2: Moody's Hikes Cl. K Certs' Rating to Caa3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings on two classes and
affirmed the ratings on two classes in LB Commercial Mortgage
Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-
C2 as follows:

Cl. H, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. J, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. K, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed
C (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating of Class H was affirmed because the transaction's key
metrics, the weighted average rating factor (WARF) and credit
enhancement levels, are within acceptable ranges for an
affirmation.

The rating on the P&I class J was upgraded due to increased credit
enhancement level resulting from principal amortization and the
improved credit quality of the CTL loans. The pool balance has
decreased 9% since last review and the WARF improved to 856 from
1189 at last review.

The rating on the P&I class K was upgraded due to expectation of
higher recoveries for this bond.

The rating on the IO class X was affirmed based on the credit
performance (or WARF) of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.3% of the
current balance compared to 4.1% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.67% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 2.68% at the last review.

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

Currently, the transaction is secured by 12 Credit Tenant Lease
(CTL) loans. CTL pools' ratings are primarily based on the senior
unsecured debt rating (or the corporate family rating) of the
tenants leasing the real estate collateral supporting the bonds.
Other factors that are also considered are Moody's dark value of
the collateral (value based on the property being vacant or dark),
which is used to determine a recovery rate upon a loan's default
and the rating of the residual insurance provider, if applicable.
Factors that may cause an upgrade of the ratings include an
upgrade in the rating of the corporate tenant or significant loan
paydowns or amortization which results in a higher dark loan to
value. Factors that may cause a downgrade of the ratings include a
downgrade in the rating of the corporate tenant or the residual
insurance provider.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Commercial Real
Estate Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating Credit Tenant Lease
Financings" published in November 2011.

Description of Models Used

Moody's used a Gaussian copula model, incorporated in its public
CDO rating model CDOROMv2.13-1, to generate a portfolio loss
distribution to assess the ratings.

Moody's review incorporated the use of the CMBS IO calculator
ver1.1, which uses the following inputs to calculate the proposed
IO rating based on the published methodology: original and current
bond ratings and credit assessments; original and current bond
balances grossed up for losses for all bonds the IO(s)
reference(s) within the transaction; and IO type as defined in the
published methodology. The calculator then returns a calculated IO
rating based on both a target and mid-point. For example, a target
rating basis for a Baa3 (sf) rating is a 610 rating factor. The
midpoint rating basis for a Baa3 (sf) rating is 775 (i.e. the
simple average of a Baa3 (sf) rating factor of 610 and a Ba1 (sf)
rating factor of 940). If the calculated IO rating factor is 700,
the CMBS IO calculator ver1.1 would provide both a Baa3 (sf) and
Ba1 (sf) IO indication for consideration by the rating committee.

Deal Performance

As of the July 15, 2014 payment date, the transaction's aggregate
certificate balance has decreased by approximately 99% to $12.1
million from $892.4 million at securitization. The Certificates
are collateralized by 12 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 12% of the pool. The pool originally included two loans
with structured credit assessments, 110 conduit loans and 12 CTL
loans. Due to paydowns, the entirety of the pool now consists of
12 CTL loans.

Currently, there are no loans on the watchlist or in special
servicing.

Twenty-six loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $23.4 million (24% loss severity on
average). Due to realized losses, classes L, M, N and P have been
eliminated entirely and class K has experienced a 26% principal
loss.

The CTL loans are secured by 12 properties leased to four tenants.
The exposures are CVS/Caremark Corp. (Moody's senior unsecured
rating Baa1 - stable outlook; 72.7% of the pool), Rite Aid
Corporation (Moody's senior unsecured rating Caa1 - stable
outlook; 13.3% of the pool), Walgreen Co. (Moody's senior
unsecured rating Baa1 - stable outlook; 10.5% of the pool) and
McDonald's Corporation (Moody's senior unsecured rating A2 -
stable outlook; 3.5% of the pool).

The bottom-dollar WARF for this pool is 856 compared to 1,189 at
last review. WARF is a measure of the overall quality of a pool of
diverse credits. The bottom-dollar WARF is a measure of the
default probability within the pool.


LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2002-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. S Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on four classes
in LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust, Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2002-C1 as follows:

Cl. P, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 3, 2013 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. Q, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Oct 3, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. S, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct 3, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-CL, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 3, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa3 (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 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 29.5% of
the current balance compared to 15.2% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 1.7% of the
original pooled balance compared to 1.5% 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 principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions"
published in July 2000.

Description Of Models Used

Moody's used the excel-based Large Loan Model v 8.7 in formulating
its 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 July 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99% to $13 million
from $1.24 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by two mortgage loans. Moody's received full year
2013 operating results for both loans.

One loan, constituting 95% of the pool, is 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.

Seventeen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $17.5 million (for an average loss
severity of 32%).

The Sprint Building Loan ($12.7 million -- 95% of the pool) is on
the master servicer's watchlist. The loan is secured by a 102,315
square foot (SF) office building located in the Altamonte Springs
sub-market of Orlando, Florida. The property is 100% leased to
Sprint Corporation through November 30, 2016, and serves as its
Altamonte Springs call-center. The tenant has no more lease
renewal options remaining. The loan is on the watch list because
the borrower was not able to secure refinancing prior to its
anticipated repayment date (ARD) in March 2012. In March 2014,
Sprint confirmed its plan to eliminate about two-thirds of the
work force at this call center, as part of a companywide work-
force reduction. Due to the single tenant's downsizing as well as
its upcoming lease expiration, Moody's is concerned about the
property's ability to refinance. Moody's valuation incorporated a
lit/dark analysis. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 126% and
0.91X, respectively, compared to 93% and 1.25X at last review.

The Village at East Fork Loan ($0.66 million -- 5% of the pool) is
currently in special servicing. The loan is secured by a 72-pad
mobile home park in Leadville, Colorado. The loan transferred to
special servicing in February 2011 for collateral risk non-
monetary default. A receiver took over control of the property in
March 2014. As of June 2014, the property was 93% leased. Moody's
does not estimate a loss for this loan at this time. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 65% and 1.58X, respectively, compared to 67%
and 1.52X at the last review.


LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2004-C7: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl N Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on eight
classes, affirmed the ratings on seven classes and downgraded the
rating on one class in LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-C7 as
follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-6, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Aa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Aa2 (sf)

Cl. D, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
A1 (sf)

Cl. E, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. F, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. H, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. J, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
B2 (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. N, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-CL, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014
Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Cl. X-OL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on Classes B through J were upgraded based primarily
on an increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 70% since Moody's last
review.

The ratings on Classes A-1A and A-6 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 K through N were affirmed because
the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on IO Class X-OL was affirmed based on the credit
performance of its referenced class. The rating on IO Class X-CL
was downgraded due to the decline in the credit performance of its
reference classes resulting from principal paydowns of higher
quality reference classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.9% of the
current balance compared to 4.1% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.3% of the
original pooled balance compared to 2.8% 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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, as compared to a Herf of 8 at Moody's last
review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 84% to $223 million
from $1.42 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 38 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 8% of the pool (aside from defeasance -- the largest
defeased loan is 30% of the pool), with the top ten loans
excluding defeasance constituting 36% of the pool. Nine loans,
constituting 42% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US
government securities.

Twenty-four loans, constituting 50% 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.

Eight loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $23 million (for an average loss
severity of 48%). Based on the most recent remittance statement,
three loans, constituting 5% of the pool, are currently in special
servicing. The largest specially serviced loan is the South Peoria
Office Buildings Loan (for $4 million -- 2% of the pool), which is
secured by two office properties with approximately 77,500 square
feet (SF) of net rentable area (NRA). This loan paid off on July
25, 2014.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $2 million loss for specially
serviced loans (25% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for four poorly
performing loans, constituting 6% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $2 million (a 15% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 and 2013 operating results for
100% of the pool and partial year 2014 operating results for 80%
of the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 92% 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 14% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.21X and 1.14X,
respectively, compared to 1.39X and 1.08X 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 18% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Guam Multifamily Loan ($19 million -- 8% of
the pool), which is secured by 12 apartment buildings and one
retail property totaling 54,377 SF located on the island of Guam.
The properties are occupied mainly by Guam-native families, non-
native transient workers and U.S. military personnel. As of March
2014, the weighted average occupancy was 82%. Performance has
remained stable and the loan benefits from amortization. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 83% and 1.17X, respectively, compared to
84% and 1.16X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Center Office Building Loan ($13
million -- 6% of the pool), which is secured by an 8-story,
377,126 SF office building built in 1978 and located 13 miles from
downtown Houston. The property was 72% leased as of March 2014 as
compared to 80% in December 2012. The loan matures in August 2014.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 116% and 0.86X, respectively,
compared to 79% and 1.26X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the A&P Portfolio ($7 million -- 3% of
the pool), which is secured by three single tenant grocery stores
located in Louisiana. All three properties are 100% leased to
Superfresh. The property benefits from amortization and matures on
November 15, 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 95% and
1.08X, respectively, compared to 85% and 1.21X at the last review.


LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2004-C8: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 2 Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of three
classes, affirmed the ratings of eight classes and downgraded the
rating of one class of LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-C8 as
follows:

Cl. A-6, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. D, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Upgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Upgraded to B1
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-CL, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014
Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on Classes B, C and D were upgraded primarily due to
an increase in credit support since Moody's last review, resulting
from 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 pool has paid down by 51% since Moody's last
review. In addition, loans constituting 48% of the pool that have
either defeased or have debt yields exceeding 10.0% are scheduled
to mature within the next six months.

The ratings on Classes A-6 and A-J 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 six below investment grade P&I classes
were affirmed because the ratings are consistent with Moody's
expected loss.

The rating on the IO Class (Class X-CL) was downgraded due to the
decline in the credit performance of its reference classes
resulting from principal paydowns of higher quality reference
classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 11.3% of
the current balance compared to 5.2% at Moody's last review. The
large percentage increase in base expected loss is mainly due to
the 51% decrease in the pooled balance since last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 6.6% of the
original pooled balance compared to 6.5% 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 compared to 11 at last review the same as at
Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 79% to $269.8
million from $1.31 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 42 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 13% of the pool, with the top ten exposures constituting 50%
of the pool. Four loans, constituting 19% of the pool, have
defeased and are secured by US government securities.

Fifteen loans, constituting 36% 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-eight loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting
in an aggregate realized loss of $56 million (for an average loss
severity of 19%). Four loans, constituting 12% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Antioch Distribution Center Loan ($17.3 million --
6.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 666,600 square foot (SF)
warehouse/distribution center built in 1954 and located in
Antioch, California. The loan was transferred to special servicing
in August 2011 due to imminent maturity default as a result of
high vacancy at the property. The loan became REO in August 2012.
As of March 2014 the property was 76% leased compared to 59% in
January 2013. The two largest tenants each represent approximately
22% of the net rentable area (NRA). The special servicer indicated
they have recently executed a 10-year renewal for one of these
tenants and are in discussions in regards to a seven year renewal
for the other.

The remaining three specially serviced loans are secured by retail
properties. Additionally, Moody's has assumed a high default
probability for three poorly performing loans, constituting 5% of
the pool, and has estimated an aggregate loss of $19.4 million
from these specially serviced and troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 97% of the
pool, and full year 2013 operating results for 94% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 100% compared to 93% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component defeased loans,
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 13% 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 1.17X and 1.05X,
respectively, compared to 1.25X and 1.12X 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 25% of the pool. The largest
loan is the DRA/Equity One Florida Portfolio Loan ($34.5 million -
- 12.8% of the pool), which is secured by two grocery anchored
retail properties and one office property for a total of 496,000
SF. The retail properties are located in Broward County, Florida
and the office property is in Palm Beach County, Florida. The
portfolio was originally referred to as the Gehr Florida
Portfolio, however, DRA & Equity One purchased the portfolio and
assumed the loan in August 2008. The portfolio was 84% leased as
of March 2014 compared to 80% in September 2013. The performance
of the two retail properties has improved in 2013 and each one was
at least 89% leased. However, the office property, representing
116,500 SF, was only 58% leased as of March 2014. The loan matures
in November 2014 and Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 113% and
0.86X, respectively, the same as last review.

The second largest loan is the North Haven Pavilion Loan ($23.0
million -- 8.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 148,000 SF
retail center located in North Haven, Connecticut. The property
was 99% leased as of April 2014, the same as at last review. The
collateral is shadow anchored by a Target, while major collateral
tenants include Sports Authority and Michael's Stores. The loan is
benefitting from amortization and matures in November 2014.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 99% and 1.04X, respectively,
compared to 100% and 1.03X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Santa Fe Arcade Loan ($11.2 million
-- 4.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 28,000 SF retail
building located in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The property was 91%
leased as of March 2014. The loan is on the master servicer
watchlist due to low DSCR and the matures in November 2014.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 123% and 0.90X, respectively,
compared to 122% and 0.91X at last review.


LCM XVI: S&P Affirms 'BB-' Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on LCM XVI
L.P./LCM XVI LLC's $654.10 million floating-rate notes following
the transaction's effective date as of June 20, 2014.

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

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 S&P's 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 S&P deems
necessary.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

LCM XVI L.P./LCM XVI LLC

Class                      Rating                       Amount
                                                      (mil. $)
X                          AAA (sf)                       4.50
A                          AAA (sf)                     441.00
B                          AA (sf)                       84.70
C                          A (sf)                        56.00
D                          BBB (sf)                      34.30
E                          BB- (sf)                      33.60


LEGG MASON II: Moody's Affirms 'Caa1' Rating on Class C Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Legg Mason Real Estate CDO II, Corp.:

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2013 Affirmed
Aa2 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Moody's Investors Service has also affirmed the ratings on the
following notes issued by Legg Mason Real Estate CDO II, Corp.:

Cl. A-1R, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-1T, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the ratings on the transaction because of
rapid redemption of the underlying collateral resulting in
material amortization of senior classes of notes while other key
credit parameters of underlying pool of assets either are improved
or remain stable. Moody's has affirmed the ratings of on the
transaction because key transaction metrics are commensurate with
the existing ratings. The rating action is the result of Moody's
on-going surveillance of commercial real estate collateralized
debt obligation and collateralized loan obligation (CRE CDO CLO)
transactions.

Legg Mason Real Estate CDO II is a cash CRE CDO transaction whose
reinvestment period ended in May 2012. The transaction is backed
by a portfolio of: i) whole loans and senior participations (92.3%
of the pool balance); ii) CRE CDO securities (4.4%); and iii)
mezzanine interests (3.3%). As of the June 25, 2014 note valuation
report, the aggregate note balance of the transaction, including
income notes, has decreased to $275.7 million from $525.0 million
at issuance, with junior notes cancellation to the class C notes
and the principal paydown directed to the senior most outstanding
classes of notes. The paydown was the result of the combination of
regular amortization and resolution and sales of defaulted
collateral. In general, holding all key parameters static, the
junior note cancellations results in slightly higher expected
losses and longer weighted average lives on the senior Notes,
while producing slightly lower expected losses on the mezzanine
and junior Notes. However, this does not cause, in and of itself,
a downgrade or upgrade of any outstanding classes of notes.

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 reference obligations
it does not rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF
of 7168, compared to 7211 at last review. The current ratings on
the Moody's-rated reference obligations and the assessments of the
non-Moody's rated reference obligation follow: Aaa-Aa3 and 2.4%
compared to 1.7% at last review; A1-A3 and 0.0% compare to 0.5% at
last review; Baa1-Baa3 and 2.2% compared to 3.8% at last review;
Ba1-Ba3 and 2.4% compared to 1.1% at last review; B1-B3 and 6.8%
compared to 6.3% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 86.2% compared
to 86.6% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.2 years, compared to 2.5 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 52.5%, compared to 52.0% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100.0%, the same as 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 March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes 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 notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for the rated notes,
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 notes are particularly sensitive to changes in the
recovery rate of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Holding all other key parameters static, reducing the recovery
rate by 10% would result in modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero to seven notches downward (e.g. one notch down
implies a rating movement from Baa3 to Ba1). Increasing the
recovery rate by 10% would result in modeled rating movement on
the rated notes of zero to ten notches upward (e.g. one notch up
implies a rating movement from Ba1 to Baa3).

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.


LEHMAN MORTGAGE 2007-5: Moody's Cuts Rating on $108MM of RMBS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of 14
tranches issued by one Lehman RMBS transaction backed by Alt-A
RMBS loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Lehman Mortgage Trust 2007-5

Cl. 3-A2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 5-A1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 5-A2, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 5-A3, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 6-A1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 7-A1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 7-A3, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 7-A4, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 8-A1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 8-A3, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 8-A4, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. AP2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. AX1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2012
Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. AX2, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The 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 due to weaker collateral
performance.

The rating actions on the class AX1 and class AX2 bonds also
reflect correction of an error. The notional balances of these
interest-only bonds are linked to underlying pool balances.
According to Moody's methodology for rating interest-only
securities ("IO"), the rating of pool IOs is the lowest of: (i)
Ba3 (sf); (ii) the highest current tranche rating on bonds that
are outstanding backed by the referenced pool; or (iii) the rating
corresponding to the pool's expected loss. In previous rating
actions for Lehman Mortgage Trust 2007-5, class AX1 and class AX2
were incorrectly assigned ratings higher than the highest rating
of bonds outstanding. The actions on the class AX1 and AX2 bonds
correctly take into account Moody's methodology for rating
interest only securities.

The principal methodology used in this rating 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 6.1% in June 2014 from 7.5% in
June 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.


MAC CAPITAL: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'BB'
--------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on all eight
classes of rated notes from MAC Capital Ltd., a multi-currency
cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed
by Crescent Capital Group L.P.  S&P also removed the eight classes
of notes from CreditWatch, where they were placed with positive
implications on April 9, 2014.

The transaction ended its reinvestment period in July 2013.  Since
S&P's July 2011 rating actions, the class A-1 notes have paid down
to less than 10% of their initial issuance amounts after the July
2014 payment date.  The senior class A overcollateralization ratio
increased to 197% in the June 2014 trustee report from 136% in the
April 2011 report which S&P referenced for its July 2011 rating
actions.

According to the June 2014 trustee report, the portion of assets
rated B+ and above in the portfolio has decreased significantly
since S&P's review in 2011.  Additionally, the remaining
proportion of mezzanine debt has had an adverse effect on the
recovery values used in S&P's cash flow analysis.  Despite the
credit deterioration in the pool, S&P upgraded all eight classes
of rated notes because the effects of the liability paydowns
resulted in increased credit support for all the notes.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
currently 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 LIST

MAC Capital Ltd.
                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To         From
B-1F    55265AAK7    A- (sf)    BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
A-1L    55265AAB7    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-1LV   55265AAC5    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2L    55265AAH4    AAA (sf)   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3L    55265AAJ0    AA (sf)    A- (sf)/Watch Pos
B-1L    55265AAL5    A- (sf)    BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2F    55265AAM3    BB (sf)    B+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2L    55265AAN1    BB (sf)    B+ (sf)/Watch Pos


MERRILL LYNCH 2007-C1: S&P Affirms 'B-' Rating on Class AM Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on seven
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust 2007-C1, a U.S. commercial mortgage-
backed securities (CMBS) transaction.

S&P's affirmations on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates follow its analysis of the transaction, primarily
using its criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS transactions,
which 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.

"The affirmations on the principal- and interest-only certificates
reflect our 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 affirmations
also reflect our views regarding the current and future
performance of the transaction's collateral, the transaction's
structure, and the liquidity support available to the classes.  It
also reflects our analysis of the nine assets ($171.6 million,
6.3%) currently with the special servicer, C-III Asset Management
LLC (C-III), as well as the loan modifications of the three
largest loans ($825.7 million, 30.4%) in the transaction," S&P
said.

The 'A (sf)' rating on class A-3FL is partially dependent on the
rating on Bank of America Corp. (A-/Negative/A-2) as the hedge
counterparty.  Following the application of S&P's counterparty
criteria, the rating on class A3-FL is one notch above its rating
on Bank of America Corp., based primarily on its understanding
that the derivative obligations contain counterparty replacement
frameworks.

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

Using servicer-provided financial information, S&P calculated a
Standard & Poor's weighted average debt service coverage (DSC) of
1.17x and a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 100.2% using a Standard &
Poor's weighted average capitalization rate of 7.65%.  The DSC and
LTV calculations exclude the nine specially serviced assets
($171.6 million, 6.3%), one defeased loan ($909,269), and two
subordinate B hope notes ($214.5 million, 7.9%).

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the July 14, 2014, trustee remittance report, seven assets
($98.6 million, 3.6%) in the pool were with C-III.  However, after
the July 2014 trustee remittance report, it was reported to S&P
that two additional loans, the Radisson -- Alexandria loan ($42.5
million, 1.6%) and the Holiday Inn -- Alexandria loan ($30.5
million, 1.1%), were transferred to C-III due to imminent monetary
default.  Two of the specially serviced assets are real estate
owned (REO), and none are deemed nonrecoverable by the master
servicers, KeyBank N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank N.A.  Appraisal
reduction amounts (ARAs) totalling $16.4 million were reported for
five of the specially serviced assets. Details of the three
largest specially serviced assets, one of which is a top 10 loan,
are as follows:

   -- The Radisson - Alexandria loan ($42.5 million, 1.6%) is the
      largest asset with the special servicer and is the 10th-
      largest loan in the transaction.

   -- The loan was transferred to C-III on July 14, 2014, due to
      imminent monetary default.  The loan is secured by a 253-
      room full-service hotel located in Alexandria, Va.  The
      loan's payment status, as of the July 2014 trustee report,
      is late, but less than one-month delinquent.  No additional
      update is available from the special servicer due to the
      recent transfer as workout strategies are still being
      determined.  The reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end
      2013 was 0.59x and 69.6%, respectively.  S&P expects a
      moderate loss upon this loan's eventual resolution.

   -- The Shoppes at Old Bridge loan ($39.1 million, 1.4%) is the
      second-largest asset with the special servicer and has a
      total reported exposure of $39.3 million.  The loan is
      secured by a 123,162-sq.-ft. retail property located in Old
      Bridge, N.J.  The loan was transferred to C-III on March 26,
      2014, due to imminent default.  The loan's payment status,
      as of the July 2014 trustee report, is late, but less than
      one-month delinquent. C-III stated that it is currently
      evaluating various workout strategies.  The reported DSC as
      of year-end 2013 was 0.97x.  S&P expects a moderate loss
      upon this loan's eventual resolution.

   -- The Holiday Inn -- Alexandria loan ($30.5 million, 1.1%) is
      the third-largest asset with the special servicer.  The loan
      was transferred to C-III on July 14, 2014, due to imminent
      monetary default.  The loan is secured by a 178-room full-
      service hotel located in Alexandria, Va.  The loan's payment
      status, as of the July 2014 trustee report, is late, but
      less than one-month delinquent.  No additional update is
      available from the special servicer due to the recent
      transfer as workout strategies are still being determined.
      The reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end 2013 was 0.53x
      and 74.8%, respectively.   S&P expects a moderate loss upon
      this loan's eventual resolution.

The six remaining assets with the special servicer have individual
balances that represent less than 0.7% of the total pool trust
balance.  S&P estimated losses for the nine specially serviced
assets, arriving at a weighted-average loss severity of 34.8%.

With respect to the specially serviced assets noted above, a
moderate loss is 26%-59% of the loan balance.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the July 14, 2014, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $2.71 billion, which is 67.0% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 205 loans and two REO
assets, down from 264 loans at issuance (reflecting crossed
loans).  Seven of these assets (excluding the recently transferred
Radisson - Alexandria and Holiday Inn - Alexandria loans)($98.6
million, 3.6%) were reported to be with the special servicer.  One
($909,269) is defeased, and 44 ($1.12 billion, 41.2%) are on the
master servicers' combined watchlist (excluding the subordinate B
hope note and not reflecting cross-collateralized and cross-
defaulted loans as one loan), including the Radisson - Alexandria
and Holiday Inn - Alexandria loans.  The master servicers reported
financial information for 90.9% of the nondefeased loans in the
pool, of which 88.7% was partial- or year-end 2013 and 2014 data,
and the remainder was year-end 2012 data.

To date, the transaction has experienced $323.1 million in
principal losses, or 8.0% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 14.7% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses S&P expects upon the eventual resolution or
liquidation of the nine specially serviced assets and the two
subordinate B hope notes ($214.5 million, 7.9%).  Twenty-seven
loans ($637.4 million, 23.5%) have a reported Standard & Poor's
DSC of less than 1.00x, and 22 loans ($413.7 million, 15.2%) have
a reported Standard & Poor's DSC between 1.00x and 1.10x.

SUMMARY OF TOP 10 LOANS

The top 10 loans have an aggregate outstanding pool trust balance
of $1.33 billion (49.2%). Using servicer-reported numbers, S&P
calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average DSC and LTV of
1.02x and 111.2%, respectively, for nine of the top 10 loans,
which excludes the Radisson - Alexandria loan, which is with the
special servicer.  Five ($1.06 billion, 38.9%) of the top 10 loans
are on the master servicers' combined watchlist, which S&P
discusses.  The Radisson - Alexandria loan appears on the
watchlist as of the July reporting period, but was subsequently
transferred to the special servicer.

The Empirian Multifamily Portfolio Pool 1 loan ($339.8 million,
12.5%) is the largest loan in the transaction.  The loan is
currently secured by a portfolio of 60 multifamily properties
totalling 6,007 units in eight U.S. states.  The loan is on the
master servicers' combined watchlist due to poor property
conditions noted in the property inspection reports.  The reported
combined DSC as of year-end 2013 was 1.16x.  The loan was
previously transferred to the special servicer on Nov. 11, 2010,
modified on Dec. 1, 2011, and returned to the master servicer on
Feb. 28, 2013.  The modification resulted in a bifurcation of the
trust balance into a $224.3 million A note and a $115.4 million
subordinate B hope note.  The modification terms included a
reduction in the A note interest rate and a full deferral of
interest on the subordinate B hope note, as well as an extension
of the interest-only periods on the loan.

The Empirian Multifamily Portfolio Pool 3 loan ($278.7 million,
10.3%) is the second-largest loan in the transaction.  The loan is
currently secured by a portfolio of 52 multifamily properties
totalling 4,399 units in eight U.S. states.  The loan is on the
master servicers' combined watchlist due to poor property
conditions noted in the property inspection reports.  The reported
combined DSC as of year-end 2013 was 1.04x.  The loan was
previously transferred to the special servicer on Nov. 11, 2010,
modified on Dec. 1, 2011, and returned to the master servicer on
Feb. 28, 2013.  The loan modification resulted in a bifurcation of
the trust balance into a $179.6 million A note and a $99.1 million
subordinate B hope note.  The modification terms included a
reduction in the A note interest rate and a full deferral of
interest on the subordinate B hope note, as well as an extension
of the interest-only periods on the loan.

The DRA/Colonial Office Portfolio loan ($207.3 million, 7.6%) is
the third-largest loan in the transaction.  The loan has a trust
balance of $207.3 million and an outstanding whole-loan balance of
$621.9 million.  The whole loan is divided into three pari passu
pieces: an A-1 note that is included in this transaction, a $207.3
million A-2 note held in Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage
Securities Trust 2007-PWR17, and a $207.3 million A-3 note held in
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-PWR18, both
U.S. CMBS transactions.  The whole loan is currently secured by a
portfolio of 16 office properties totalling 4.4 million sq. ft
located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina.  The
loan is on the master servicers' combined watchlist due to a low
reported DSC.  The reported combined DSC as of year-end 2013 was
0.98x.  The loan was previously transferred to the special
servicer on Aug. 21, 2012, modified on Dec. 14, 2012, and returned
to the master servicer on May 29, 2013.  The modification terms
included an extension of the loan's maturity date to July 2016
from July 2014.

The U-Haul Self Storage Portfolio 14, 15, 16, 17 loan is the
fourth-largest loan in the pool and consists of four cross-
collateralized and cross-defaulted loans totalling $123.3 million
(4.5%).  The loans are secured by a portfolio of 32 self-storage
properties consisting of 19,188 units across various U.S. states.
The loans are on the master servicers' combined watchlist due to a
low reported DSC.  The reported combined DSC as of trailing 12
months ending March 31, 2014 was 1.20x.

The 1101 New York Avenue loan is the fifth-largest loan in the
pool ($109.7 million, 4.0%).  The loan is part of a pari passu
loan structure, and the other 50% portion is included in Bear
Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-PWR17, a U.S.
CMBS transaction.  The whole loan is secured by a 390,994-sq.-ft.
office property in Washington, D.C. The loan appears on the master
servicers' combined watchlist due to a low reported DSC, which S&P
attributed to a decrease in occupancy.  One of the property's
largest tenants vacated the building in the third quarter of 2012,
and occupancy dropped to 64.0% from 99.5%.  Based on a recent rent
roll as of April 1, 2014, provided by the master servicers,
occupancy has improved to 89.2% at the property.  The DSC as of
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2013, was 0.52x.

RATINGS LIST

Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust 2007-C1

                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-3     59025KAC6    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-SB    59025KAD4    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-4     59025KAE2    BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)
A-1A    59025KAF9    BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)
AM      59025KAG7    B- (sf)     B- (sf)
A-3FL   59025KAN2    A (sf)      A (sf)
X       59025KBD3    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)


MORGAN STANLEY 1998-CF1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on 2 Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded one class and affirmed two CMBS
classes in Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1998-CF1 as follows:

Cl. F, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Upgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Upgraded to
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on one P&I class was upgraded because of an increase in
credit support resulting from loan paydowns and increased
defeasance. The deal has paid down 12% since Moody's last review
and two additional loans have defeasanced which brings the share
of defeasance to 25% of the pooled balance. The rating on one
below investment grade P&I class was affirmed because the rating
is consistent with Moody's expected loss. The rating on the IO
class was affirmed based on the credit performance of its
referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.1% of the
current balance compared to 4.2% at last review. Moody's base
expected loss plus realized losses is now 7.3% of the original
pooled balance compared to 7.4% at 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 CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions" published in
July 2000, and "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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 5 compared to 7 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 97% to $35.0
million from $1.10 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 13 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 24% of the pool. Four loans, representing 25% of the pool,
have defeased and are secured by U.S. Government securities.

There are three loans 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 Moody's ongoing monitoring
of a transaction, Moody's reviews the watchlist to assess which
loans have material issues that could impact performance.

Fifty-two loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $79.7 million (50% loss severity on
average). No loans are currently in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2012 and 2013 operating results for 66%
of the pool, respectively. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is
49%, compared to 51% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit
component excludes loans with structured 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) for
the single tenant office building conduit loan. Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 10.2%. 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 53% of the pool balance. The
largest conduit loan is the Bristol Market Place Loan ($8.4
million -- 23.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 99,256 square
foot (SF) retail center located in Santa Ana, California. As of
December 2013, the property was 90% leased compared to 92% at last
review. Overall, the property financial performance improved and
the loan has amortized 27% securitization. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 54% and 1.89X, respectively, compared to 56% and
1.84X at last review.

The second largest conduit loan is the Van Dorn Station Loan ($6.3
million -- 17.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 74,464 SF
retail center located in Alexandria, Virginia. Occupancy increased
to 66% as of December 2013 compared to 42% at year-end 2012. While
occupancy increased, the net cash flow declined 6% between year-
end 2012 and year-end 2013 at this shadow anchored retail center.
The loan has amortized over 28% since securitization. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 46% and 2.45X, respectively, compared to 49%
and 2.31X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Gardenside Shopping Center Loan
($4.1 million -- 11.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 187,866
SF anchored retail center located in Henderson, Kentucky. The
property was 77% occupied as of March 2014, the same as at last
review. Kmart and Goody's occupy 58% of the NRA and the loan has
amortized 43% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 73% and 1.55x, respectively, compared to 77% and 1.4x at last
review.


MORGAN STANLEY 2000-PRIN: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on X Secs.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on four classes
in Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital I Trust 2000-PRIN as
follows:

Cl. C, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 12, 2013 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Sep 12, 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 rating on the IO class was affirmed due to 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 4.6% of the
current balance compared to 3.6% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 0.4% of the
original pooled balance compared to 0.5% 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 15 compared to 14 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 23, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 93% to $40 million
from $598 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 23 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 12% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 74% of
the pool.

Ten loans, constituting 30% 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.

Currently there are no loans in special servicing. Moody's has
assumed a high default probability for one poorly performing loan.
Two loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $0.6 million (for an average loss
severity of 0.7%).

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 87% of the
pool and full year 2013 operating results for 100% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 31% compared to 38% 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%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.51X and 5.41X,
respectively, compared to 1.51X and 4.09X 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 33% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the 5560 Katella Avenue Loan ($5 million -- 12% of
the pool), which is secured by a 215,000 square foot (SF) single-
tenant industrial property located in Cypress, California. The
property is 100% leased to Global Experience Specialist through
December 2015. Performance has remained in line with last review,
although due to the single tenant nature of this building, Moody's
value reflects a stressed cashflow derived from a dark/lit
analysis. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 52% and 1.97X,
respectively, compared to 58% and 1.78X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the 10900 Research Boulevard Loan ($4
million -- 11% of the pool), which is secured by an approximately
73,900 SF portion of an approximately 83,500 SF grocery-anchored
retail center located in Austin, Texas. The property was 100%
leased as of December 2013. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 41%
and 2.56X, respectively, compared to 43% and 2.43X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the 6100 Gateway Drive & 10700 Valley
View Street Loan ($4 million -- 10% of the pool), which is secured
by an approximately 130,000 SF industrial property located in
Cypress, California. As of December 2013, the property was 42%
occupied. Moody's has assigned a high default probability to this
loan.


MORGAN STANLEY 2006-HE3: Moody's Hikes Class A-2c Debt to 'Caa2'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of two tranches
from Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE3, which are
backed by Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE3

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on May 1, 2014 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. A-2c, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 15, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The upgrade actions are primarily a result of a Trust Settlement
Agreement payment of approximately $15 million into the trust in
the June 2014 remittance period over previously identified
breaches of representations and warranties of certain loans, as a
result of which the available amount of credit enhancement to the
bonds has increased. The actions also reflect recent performance
of the underlying pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on
those pools.

The principal methodology used in this rating 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 6.1% in June 2014 from 7.5% in
June 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.


MORGAN STANLEY 2006-HQ9: S&P Lowers Rating on Class H Notes to D
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on two
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2006-HQ9, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  In addition, S&P
lowered its ratings on two classes and affirmed its ratings on 10
other classes from the same transaction.

S&P's rating actions on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates follow its analysis of the transaction, primarily
using our criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS transactions,
which 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.

"We raised our ratings on classes A-J and B to reflect our
expectation of the available credit enhancement for these classes,
which we believe is greater than our most recent necessary credit
enhancement estimate for the respective rating levels.  The
upgrades also follow our views regarding the current and future
performance of the transaction's collateral and available
liquidity support.  The upgrades also reflect the pool trust
balance's significant reduction as well as the full repayments of
the 120 Broadway loan ($215.0 million original pool trust
balance), the DCT Industrial Portfolio-Roll-Up loan ($50.0 million
original pool trust balance), and the RLJ Hotel Portfolio-Roll-Up
loan ($41.9 million original pool trust balance)," S&P said.

The downgrades on classes G and H reflect the credit support
erosion that S&P anticipates will occur upon the eventual
resolution of the six assets ($62.4 million, 3.5% of the pool)
with the special servicer, as well as the decreased liquidity
support available to these classes due to ongoing interest
shortfalls.  Specifically, S&P lowered its rating on class H to 'D
(sf)' from 'CCC+ (sf)' because it expects the accumulated interest
shortfalls to remain outstanding for the foreseeable future.

As of the July 14, 2014, trustee remittance report, the trust
experienced monthly interest shortfalls totaling $130,227,
primarily from $63,106 in net appraisal subordinate entitlement
reductions, $13,012 in special servicing fees, $23,523 in interest
rate modifications, and $31,996 in interest not advanced.  The
current monthly interest shortfalls affected classes subordinate
to and including class H.

The affirmations on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit
enhancement for classes A-4, A-4FL, A-1A, A-M, C, D, E, and F will
be within its estimate for the necessary credit enhancement
required at the current ratings.  The affirmations also reflect
S&P's views regarding the current and future performance of the
transaction's collateral, the transaction structure, and liquidity
support available to the classes.

S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class X and X-MP
interest-only (IO) certificates based on our criteria for rating
IO securities.

Using servicer-provided financial information, S&P calculated its
weighted average debt service coverage (DSC) of 1.47x and loan-to-
value(LTV) ratio of 76.3% using a Standard & Poor's weighted
average capitalization rate of 7.53%.  The DSC and LTV
calculations exclude the six specially serviced assets ($62.4
million, 3.5%), five defeased loans ($168.8 million, 9.5%), and
three subordinate B hope notes ($4.8 million, 0.3%).

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the July 14, 2014, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $1.77 billion, which is 69.1% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 162 loans (reflecting
cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted loans) and two real
estate owned (REO) assets, down from 202 loans at issuance.  Six
of these assets ($62.4 million, 3.5%) are with the special
servicer, five ($168.8 million, 9.5%) are defeased, and 54 ($388.4
million, 21.9%) are on the master servicer's watchlist.  The
master servicer, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., reported financial
information for 99.0% of the nondefeased loans in the pool, of
which 97.4% was year-end 2013 data and the remainder was partial-
or year-end 2012 data.

To date, the transaction has experienced $112.6 million in
principal losses, or 4.4% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 5.2% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses S&P expects upon the eventual resolution or
liquidation of the six specially serviced assets.  There are 24
loans ($149.8 million, 8.5%) with a Standard and Poor's DSC less
than 1.00x and 15 loans ($141.7 million, 8.0%) have a Standard &
Poor's DSC between 1.00x and 1.10x.

SUMMARY OF TOP 10 NONDEFEASED LOANS

The top 10 nondefeased loans have an $861.2 million (48.6%)
aggregate outstanding pool trust balance.  Using servicer-reported
numbers, S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average DSC
and LTV of 1.62x and 74.2%, respectively, for nine of the top 10
nondefeased loans.  The remaining loan is specially serviced.
Three ($143.6 million, 8.1%) of the top 10 nondefeased loans are
on the master servicer's watchlist.

The Weberstown Mall loan ($60.0 million, 3.4%), the fourth-largest
nondefeased loan in the pool, is secured by 605,346 sq. ft. of an
859,232-sq.-ft. enclosed regional mall in Stockton, Calif.  The
loan is on Wells Fargo's watchlist due to a low reported DSC,
which was 1.40x as of year-end 2013.  Occupancy was 99.4%
according to the May 2014 rent roll.

The Gateway Shopping Center loan ($60.0 million, 3.4%), the fifth-
largest nondefeased loan in the pool, is secured by a 257,844-sq.-
ft. retail power center in West Bloomfield, Mich.  The loan
appears on Wells Fargo's watchlist because it is being monitored
as a corrected mortgage loan.  The loan was transferred to the
special servicer on Jan. 28, 2014, modified on May 5, 2014, and
returned to the master servicer on May 19, 2014.  The modification
terms was effective as of Oct. 3, 2013, and included establishing
a tenant improvement and leasing commission reserve account.  The
reported occupancy and DSC were 98.8% and 1.18x, respectively, as
of year-end 2013.

The Ritz-Carlton Portfolio-Roll-Up loan, the 10th-largest
nondefeased loan in the pool, has a $183.2 million whole loan
balance that is split into two pari passu pieces, one of which
($23.6 million) makes up 1.3% of the pool trust balance.  The
other piece is in Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2006-HQ8, another
U.S. CMBS transaction.  The whole loan is currently secured by
four full-service hotels totaling 829 rooms in New York and
Washington D.C.  The loan appears on Wells Fargo's watchlist due
to a low reported DSC, which was 0.67x as of year-end 2013.  The
reported combined occupancy for the portfolio was 73.7% for the
same period.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the July 14, 2014, trustee remittance report, six assets in
the pool were with the special servicer, C-III Asset Management
LLC (C-III).  The reported payment status of the specially
serviced assets as of the most recent trustee remittance report is
as follows: two of the specially serviced assets are REO ($15.0
million, 0.8%), one is 90-plus-days delinquent ($5.8 million,
0.3%), one is two-months delinquent ($1.9 million, 0.1%), one is
in foreclosure ($13.5 million, 0.8%), and one is current ($26.2
million, 1.5%).  Appraisal reduction amounts (ARAs) totaling $18.2
million were reported for four of the six specially serviced
assets; however, the master servicer subsequently deemed one of
the assets ($6.4 million, 0.4%) nonrecoverable.  Details of the
two largest specially serviced assets, one of which is a top 10
nondefeased loan, are as follows:

The Indianapolis Office Portfolio-Roll-Up loan ($26.2 million,
1.5%) is the ninth-largest nondefeased loan in the pool, and has
$26.4 million in total reported exposure and is secured by two
office properties totaling 608,054 sq.ft. in Indianapolis.  The
loan was transferred to C-III on April 9, 2014 (according to
C-III, effective as of March 31, 2014), because the borrower
indicated that it could no longer fund property shortfalls.  C-III
stated that it is evaluating its options, including foreclosure
proceedings.  The reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end 2013
were 1.28x and 72.7%, respectively.  S&P expects a minimal loss
upon this loan's eventual resolution.

The One Chatham Center loan ($13.5 million, 0.8%) has $13.9
million in total reported exposure and is secured by a 236,019-
sq.-ft. office building in Pittsburgh.  The loan was transferred
to C-III on March 14, 2014, because the borrower stated that it
could no longer fund property shortfalls.  C-III indicated that it
has filed for foreclosure and expects it to close this year.  The
reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end 2013 were 0.49x and
47.2%, respectively.  A $6.6 million ARA is in effect against this
loan and S&P expects a moderate loss upon its eventual resolution.

The four remaining assets with the special servicer have
individual balances that represent less than 0.5% of the total
pooled trust balance.  S&P estimated losses for the six specially
serviced assets, deriving a weighted-average loss severity of
35.2%.

With respect to the specially serviced assets noted above, a
minimal loss is less than 25%, a moderate loss is 26%-59%, and a
significant loss is 60% or greater.

RATINGS LIST

Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2006-HQ9
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-HQ9
                               Rating
Class        Identifier        To               From
A-1A         61750CAB3         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-4          61750CAF4         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-4FL        61750CBM8         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-M          61750CAG2         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-J          61750CAH0         A- (sf)          BBB+ (sf)
B            61750CAJ6         BBB+ (sf)        BBB (sf)
C            61750CAK3         BBB- (sf)        BBB- (sf)
D            61750CAL1         BB+ (sf)         BB+ (sf)
E            61750CAM9         BB (sf)          BB (sf)
F            61750CAN7         B+ (sf)          B+ (sf)
G            61750CAS6         CCC (sf)         B (sf)
H            61750CAT4         D (sf)           CCC+ (sf)
X            61750CAP2         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
X-MP         61750CAQ0         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)


MORGAN STANLEY 2006-HQ10: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 3 Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 12 classes
in Morgan Stanley I Trust 2006-HQ10, Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2006-HQ10 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4FL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4FX, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on six P&I classes (Classes A-1A - A-J) 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 five P&I classes (Classes B - F)
were affirmed because the ratings are consistent with Moody's
expected loss.

The rating on the IO class was affirmed due to 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 5.4% of the
current balance compared to 7.9% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 9.7% of the
original pooled balance compared to 9.9% 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 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 Structured Credit Assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
Structured Credit Assessment level) for loans with similar
Structured 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 22 compared to 28 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the July 14, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 26% to $1.1 billion
from $1.5 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 96 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 11% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 51% of
the pool. Three loans, constituting 18% of the pool, have
investment-grade Structured Credit Assessments. Five loans,
constituting 9% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US
government securities.

Twenty-seven 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.

Twenty-four loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $85.5 million (for an average loss
severity of 40%). One loan, constituting less than 1% of the pool,
is currently in special servicing.

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 17 poorly
performing loans, constituting 15% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $45 million (a 27% expected loss based on a
62% probability default) from the specially serviced and troubled
loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 89% of the
pool, full year 2013 operating results for 99% of the pool and
partial year 2014 operating results for 44% of the pool. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 100% compared to 105% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
Structured Credit Assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 13% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.34X and 1.09X,
respectively, compared to 1.25X and 1.00X 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 largest loan with a Structured Credit Assessment is the
Waterside Shops Loan ($120 million -- 11% of the pool), which is
secured by a 265,664 square foot (SF) regional mall located in
Naples, Florida. The loan is interest-only throughout its term.
The property is also encumbered with a $45 million B-note held
outside the trust. The center is anchored by Nordstrom (which is
not part of the collateral for the loan), Saks Fifth Avenue, and
Barnes & Noble. As of year-end 2013, the property was 99% leased
compared to 98% at last review. Excluding the Apple store, jewelry
stores and food service stores, comparable inline sales per SF for
the trailing twelve months as of March 2014 were $537 compared to
$539 in 2013. The loan matures in October 2016. Moody's Structured
Credit Assessment and stressed DSCR are baa3 (sca.pd) and 1.17X,
respectively, compared to baa3 (sca.pd) and 1.12X at the last
review.

The second largest loan with a Structured Credit Assessment is the
Sony Pictures Plaza Loan ($46 million -- 4% of the pool), which is
secured by a 328,847 SF office building located in Culver City,
California. The property is also encumbered with a $37 million B-
note held outside the trust. The property is 100% leased to Sony
Pictures Entertainment through 2027 with an early termination
option available in 2017. The loan is benefitting from
amortization and matures in September 2016. Moody's value is based
on a lit/dark analysis. Moody's Structured Credit Assessment and
stressed DSCR are baa1 (sca.pd) and 1.74X, respectively, compared
to baa1 (sca.pd) and 1.71X at the last review.

The third largest loan with a Structured Credit Assessment is the
Cherry Creek Shopping Center Loan ($30 million -- 3% of the pool),
which is secured by an 11% pari-passu interest in an interest-only
first mortgage loan secured by the borrower's interest in a
547,457 SF regional mall located in Denver, Colorado. The property
is anchored by Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy's and
Nordstrom, which are not part of the collateral. As of March 2014,
the collateral space was 91% occupied, compared to 92% at last
review. Excluding the Apple store, jewelry stores and food service
stores, comparable inline sales per SF were $477 in 2013 compared
to $466 in 2012. The loan matures in June 2016. Moody's Structured
Credit Assessment and stressed DSCR are baa2 (sca.pd) and 1.28X,
respectively, compared to baa2 (sca.pd) and 1.24X at the last
review.

The top three conduit loans represent 22% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the PPG Portfolio ($100 million -- 9% of the
pool), which is secured by seven cross-collateralized and cross-
defaulted office properties located in Arizona, Colorado, and
Indiana. As of December 2013, the portfolio was 88% leased,
essentially the same as at last review. The portfolio's
performance has been stable and the loan is benefitting from
amortization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 112% and 0.87X,
respectively, compared to 111% and 0.88X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the AZ Office/Retail Porfolio ($72
million -- 7% of the pool), which is secured by which is secured
by three cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted mixed use
(retail and office) properties located in Scottsdale, Arizona. As
of March 2014, the portfolio was 77% leased compared to 78% at
last review. The loan transferred to special servicing in March
2012 due to imminent payment default. The loan was returned to the
Master Servicer with no modification in February 2014. Due to the
portfolio's poor performance for the last three years, Moody's has
assigned a high default probability to this loan. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 190% and 0.57X, respectively, compared to 174%
and 0.62X at the last review.

The third largest loan is The Shops at Briargate Loan ($71 million
-- 6% of the pool), which is secured by a 225,922 SF luxury
lifestyle center located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. As of
March 2014, the property was 93% leased compared to 95% at the
last review. Excluding the Apple store, jewelry stores and food
service stores, comparable sales per SF for 2013 were $324
compared to $314 for 2012. Performance remains stable and the loan
is benefitting from amortization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 117% and 0.83X, respectively, compared to 129% and 0.76X at
the last review.


MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ13: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. H Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 18 classes of Morgan Stanley Capital I
Trust (MSC 2007-IQ13) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2007-IQ13.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations reflect sufficient credit enhancement of the
remaining classes relative to Fitch's expected losses. Fitch
modeled losses of 13.6% of the remaining pool; expected losses on
the original pool balance total 14%, including $60 million (3.7%
of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date. Fitch
has designated 36 loans (35.8%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which
includes 13 specially serviced assets (11.5%).

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 23.6% to $1.25 billion from
$1.64 billion at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, four loans
(5.1% of the pool) are defeased.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the 75-101 Federal
Street loan (16.8% of the pool), which is secured by two
interconnected, class A office buildings composed of 811,687
square feet (sf) in Boston's financial district. The second
largest tenant EnerNOC (4.7% of NRA) vacated and relocated its
corporate headquarters to the Innovation District in June 2013. As
of June 2014, occupancy for the building was 77%. Due to the
decline in occupancy, cash flow has been insufficient to service
the debt with servicer reported debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)
as of March 2014 at 0.74x. As of May 2014, Reis reported the
Central Business District submarket of Boston vacancy rate at
10.7% and asking rents of $53.18 psf compared to in-place rents of
approximately $38 psf. Although losses were modeled for the loan,
refinance and default risk is mitigated by strong loan structural
features, institutional sponsorship and a central CBD location. As
of July 2014, the loan is current and approximately $1.6 million
remains in tenant reserves.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-
serviced 1.2 million-sf, outlet mall (6.2%) in Hazelwood, MO, a
suburb of St. Louis. The loan transferred to special servicing in
October 2011 due to the borrower's inability to secure financing
by the loan's maturity date. A deed-in-lieu of foreclosure was
signed in August 2012. As of June 2014, servicer reported
occupancy for the property was 78%. The servicer has made leasing
progress by securing a new lease with Ross Dress for Less in
addition to renewing Books-A-Million and Burlington Coat Factory;
however, the mall continues to face challenges in tenant retention
due to increased competition from two new outlet malls in nearby
Chesterfield, MO. Recent tenants vacating the mall include
Marshall's and Nascar Speedpark representing 9.1% of the NRA
collectively. Approximately 25.9% of leases are scheduled to
expire through the end of 2015.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a specially
serviced asset (1.6%), secured by a 119,898 sf retail property
located in Ontario, CA. The loan transferred to special servicing
in July 2010 for non-monetary default due to a change in property
management and transfer of ownership without lender consent. The
loan was scheduled for a foreclosure sale prior to the borrower
filing for bankruptcy protection in July 2013. As of January 2014,
occupancy for the property was 87%. The largest tenant, Platt
College, occupies 35% of the property and has a lease expiring in
July 2021, while the second largest tenant, West Coast Ultrasound,
occupies 25% with lease expiration in May 2019.

Rating Sensitivity

Rating Outlooks on classes A-1A through A-4 remain Stable due to
increasing credit enhancement and continued paydown of the
classes. Class A-M, rated 'AAsf', continues to have a Stable
Outlook. Fitch applied additional stresses to the REO ST. Louis
Mills asset given the high concentration of lease expirations
coupled with increased competition in the area. Should property
performance deteriorate, a Negative Rating Outlook or rating
action is possible. The distressed classes (those rated below 'B-
sf') are subject to further downgrades as losses are realized.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $267.6 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $41.3 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $64 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $448.8 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $163.9 million class A-M at 'AAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $149.6 million class A-J at 'CCCsf', RE 70%;
-- $32.8 million class B at 'CCCsf', RE 0%;
-- $16.4 million class C at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $16.4 million class D at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $14.3 million class E at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $18.4 million class F at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $14.3 million class G at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $5.6 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%.

Fitch does not rate the class O and P certificates. Class A-1 is
paid in full. Fitch previously withdrew the ratings on the
interest-only class X and X-Y certificates.


MORGAN STANLEY 2007-TOP27: Fitch Cuts Rating on Class B Notes to B
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded three classes and affirmed 18 classes
of Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust, commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates, series 2007-TOP27 (MSCI 2007-TOP27).

Key Rating Drivers

The downgrades are due to an increase in expected losses for the
pool.  Fitch modeled losses of 6.4% of the remaining pool;
expected losses on the original pool balance total 7.8%, including
$85.4 million (3.1% of the original pool balance) in realized
losses to date.  Fitch has designated 51 loans (26.3%) as Fitch
Loans of Concern, which includes four specially serviced assets
(4.1%).

As of the July 2014 distribution date, there are 186 loans
remaining from the original 234 loans and the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 24.9% to $2.08 billion from
$2.77 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, one loan
(0.2% of the pool) is defeased.  Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes E through P.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the Springfield
Hotel Portfolio (III) (1.8% of the pool).  The original loan was
secured by two hotels that are attached by a walkway, have a total
of 428 rooms and are located in Springfield, IL.  The hotels are
flagged as a Crowne Plaza with 288 rooms and a Holiday Inn Express
with 140 rooms.  The loan was transferred to the special servicer
in October 2011 for imminent default and the property became real
estate-owned (REO) in April 2013.

Fitch's expected loss has increased significantly since the
previous rating action due to a substantial decline in the value
of the two properties.  The hotels have been marketed since Jan.
2014.  Additionally, the Franchise License Agreements that were
set to expire in September 2014 have been finalized and executed
with Intercontinental Hotel Group.  According to a recent STR
report, the hotels are performing in line with their competitive
sets, but the market remains soft.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the specially-
serviced 791 Park of Commerce loan (1.4%), which is secured
by a 138,132 square foot (sf) office property in Boca Raton, FL.
The loan transferred to special servicing in February 2013 due to
imminent payment default.  The borrower had failed to pay the
required reserve payment triggered in December 2012 as a result of
the largest tenant's failure to renew its lease 24 months prior to
expiration.  The largest tenant has since vacated the 88,729 sf
space (64% of NRA).  However, it continues to pay rent through the
end of the year, leaving the property 92% leased and 28%
physically occupied.  The loan is in process of foreclosure.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a
specially-serviced portfolio (0.7%) initially secured by three
grocery anchored retail properties with 193,566 sf located in
Aurora, Bridgeview, and Joliet IL.  The loan was transferred to
the special servicer in March 2009 due to payment default and the
asset became real estate owned (REO) in December 2010.  The Aurora
property sold in July 2012 for $2.25 million and the Bridgeview
property sold in August 2013 for $1.8 million.  There is an
interested party for the Joliet property and negotiations are
ongoing.

The transaction also includes a non-pooled trust component secured
by the leased fee of 330 West 34th Street, a 46,412 sf parcel of
land ground leased on a triple-net basis to Vornado Realty Trust
until December 2021.  Vornado has been the only tenant at the
property since 1986 and is currently in its first extension
option, with four options totaling 128 years remaining.  The
parcel is improved with an 18-story, 636,915 sf office building
with retail at street level.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on classes A-1A through A-MFL remain Stable
due to increasing credit enhancement and continued pay down.  The
Rating Outlooks on classes A-J and B remain Negative due to the
declining value and uncertainty surrounding the resolution of the
Springfield Hotel Portfolio (III).  Distressed classes (those
rated below 'B') may be subject to downgrades as losses are
realized or if realized losses  are greater than Fitch's
expectations.

Fitch downgrades the following classes and assigns or revises
Recovery
Estimates (REs) as indicated:

   -- $190.6 million class A-J to 'BBB-sf' from 'BBBsf', Outlook
      Negative;
   -- $54.5 million class B to 'Bsf' from 'BBsf', Outlook
      Negative;
   -- $30.6 million class C to 'CCCsf' from 'Bsf', RE 55%.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

   -- $255.2 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $19 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $31.1 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $1.1 billion class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $172.3 million class A-M at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $100 million class A-MFL at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $30.6 million class D at 'CCCsf', RE 0%.
   -- $23.8 million class E at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
   -- $23.8 million class F at 'Csf', RE 0%;
   -- $23.4 million class G at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 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 O at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $50.2 million class AW34 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable.

The class A-1 and A-2 certificates have paid in full.  Fitch does
not rate the class P certificates.  Fitch previously withdrew the
rating on the interest-only class X certificates.

MORGAN STANLEY 2014-CPT: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Rating on Class G Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to Morgan
Stanley Capital I Trust 2014-CPT's $800 million commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates series 2014-CPT.  S&P withdrew
its preliminary rating on the non-offered class X-B certificates.

The note issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by an $800 million commercial mortgage loan
secured by the fee interest in Century Plaza Towers, two 44-story
class A office buildings comprising 2.4 million sq. ft. in the
Century City submarket of Los Angeles.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's historical and
projected performance, the sponsor's and manager's experience, the
trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's terms, and the
transaction's structure.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2014-CPT

Class       Rating                Amount ($)

A           AAA (sf)             415,000,000
X-A         AA (sf)           480,000,000(i)
X-B         NR                105,000,000(i)
A-M         AA (sf)               65,000,000
B           AA- (sf)              30,000,000
C           A- (sf)               75,000,000
D           BBB (sf)              50,000,000
E           BBB- (sf)             40,000,000
F           BB (sf)               80,000,000
G           BB- (sf)              45,000,000

(i) Notional balance.  The notional amount of the class X-A
     certificates will be equal to the class A and A-M
     certificates' balance, and the notional amount of the class
     X-B certificates will be equal to the class B and C
     certificates' balance.
NR-Not rated.


NEWCASTLE CDO VI: Moody's Affirms 'B1' Rating on Class I-MM Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating of the following
notes issued by Newcastle CDO VI, limited:

Class I-MM Floating Rate Notes, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on
Aug 14, 2013 Affirmed B1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has affirmed the rating of one class of notes because the
key transaction metrics are commensurate with the existing rating.
The rating action is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance
of commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO
and Re-REMIC) transactions.

Newcastle CDO VI, Ltd. is a static cash transaction backed by a
portfolio of: i) commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS)
including rake bonds (59.1% of the current collateral pool
balance); ii) residential mortgage backed securities, primarily in
the form of sub-prime certificates, (RMBS) (22.4%); and iii) REIT
debt (18.5%). As of the June 17, 2014 trustee report, the
aggregate Note balance of the transaction, including preferred
shares, has decreased to $293.9 million from $500.0 million at
issuance, with the paydown directed to the senior most outstanding
class of notes, as a result of the combination of regular
amortization and interest proceeds re-diverted as principal due to
failure of certain par value tests.

The pool contains eighteen assets totaling $54.7 million (34.7% of
the collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted
securities as of the June 17, 2014 trustee report. Fifteen of
these assets (56.5% of the defaulted balance) are RMBS; and three
(43.5%) are CMBS. Moody's does expect significant losses to occur
from these defaulted securities once they are realized.

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 4369,
compared to 4393 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 and 6.4% compared to 7.6% at last
review; A1-A3 and 10.4% compared to 9.3% at last review; Baa1-Baa3
and 15.8% compared to 14.8% at last review; Ba1-Ba3 and 16.6%
compared to 5.8% at last review; B1-B3 and 10.6% compared to 23.8%
at last review; and Caa1-C and 40.3% compared to 38.7% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.8 years, the same as at last review.
The current WAL is based on the assumption about extensions on the
underlying collateral assets.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 9.7%, compared to 15.0% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 8.3%, compared to 8.4% 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 March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes 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 notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the
rated notes, 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 notes are particularly sensitive
to changes in the recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments. Increasing the recovery rates by 10% would
result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of
+1 notch (e.g., one notch up implies a ratings movement of Ba1 to
Baa3). Decreasing the recovery rates to 0% would result in an
average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of -2 notches
(e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1).

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.


NOB HILL: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B and C notes from Nob Hill CLO Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan
obligation transaction managed by Newfleet Asset Management, LLC.
At the same time, S&P removed the ratings from CreditWatch, where
it had placed them with positive implications on April 9, 2014.
S&P also affirmed its ratings on the class A-1, A-2, D, and E
notes from the same transaction.

The upgrades reflect post-reinvestment period principal
amortization paydowns to the class A-1 notes.  Since October 2013,
when S&P raised its ratings on five classes, the class A-1 notes
paid down a total of $63.7 million to 15.2% of their original
balance, increasing credit support for the subordinate notes.

As of June 2014, there were $11.0 million (10.0%) of assets from
obligors in the 'CCC' rating category, down from $20.0 million
(11.1%) in October 2013.  In addition, defaulted assets increased
to $13.6 million (12.4%) from $9.9 million (5.5%) in October 2013.

The ratings on the class C and D notes are constrained at 'AA+
(sf)' and 'BBB+(sf)', respectively, by the application of S&P's
top obligor test, which measures concentration risk.

While the top obligor test constrains the rating on the class E
notes at 'CCC+', S&P believes the tranche has lower risk than
indicated by its criteria for assigning 'CCC+', 'CCC', 'CCC-', and
'CC' ratings.  Accordingly, S&P affirmed its 'B+ (sf)' rating
based on cashflow results. tempered by S&P's view of potential
concentration risk in the portfolio.

S&P's affirmation of the 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class A-1 and
A-2 notes reflects the availability of adequate credit support at
the current rating level.

"Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in the
aforementioned trustee report, to estimate future performance.  In
line with our criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied forward-
looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of
defaults, as well as on recoveries upon default, under various
interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, our
analysis considered the transaction's ability to pay timely
interest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches.
The results of the cash flow analysis demonstrated, in our view,
that all of the rated outstanding classes have adequate credit
enhancement available at the rating levels associated with this
rating action," S&P said.

S&P will continue to review our ratings on the notes and assess
whether they remain consistent with the credit enhancement
available to support them, and S&P will take rating actions as it
deems necessary.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Nob Hill CLO Ltd.

                           Cash flow
        Previous           implied    Cash flow   Final
Class   rating             rating     rating      rating
A-1     AAA (sf)           AAA (sf)   31.42%      AAA (sf)
A-2     AAA (sf)           AAA (sf)   31.42%      AAA (sf)
        AA+ (sf)/Watch
B       Pos                AAA (sf)   31.42%      AAA (sf)
        AA- (sf)/Watch
C       Pos                AAA (sf)   8.78%       AA+ (sf)
D       BBB+ (sf)          AA- (sf)   3.29%       BBB+ (sf)
E       BB+ (sf)           BB+ (sf)   2.44%       B+ (sf)

(i) The cash flow cushion is the excess of the tranche break-even
     default rate above the scenario default rate at the cash flow
     implied rating for a given class of rated notes.

RECOVERY RATE AND CORRELATION SENSITIVITY

In addition to S&P's base-case analysis, it generated additional
scenarios in which it made negative adjustments of 10% to the
current collateral pool's recovery rates relative to each
tranche's weighted average recovery rate.  S&P also generated
other scenarios by adjusting the intra- and inter-industry
correlations to assess the current portfolio's sensitivity to
different correlation assumptions assuming the correlation
scenarios outlined.

Correlation         Within           Between
scenario            industry (%)     industries(%)
Below base case     15.0             5.0
Base case           20.0             7.5
Above base case     25.0             10.0

                     Recovery   Correlation   Correlation
         Cash flow   decrease   increase      decrease
         implied     implied    implied       implied    Final
Class    rating      rating     rating        rating     rating
A-1      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B        AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
C        AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)
D        AA- (sf)    A+ (sf)    AA- (sf)      AA+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)
E        BB+ (sf)    B+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)      BB+ (sf)   B+ (sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

To assess whether the current portfolio has sufficient diversity,
S&P biased defaults on the assets in the current collateral pool
with the highest spread and lowest base-case recoveries.

                     Spread         Recovery
         Cash flow   compression    compression
         implied     implied        implied       Final
Class    rating      rating         rating        rating
A-1      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
B        AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
C        AAA(sf)     AAA(sf)        AA+(sf)       AA+(sf)
D        AA- (sf)    AA- (sf)       A- (sf)       BBB+(sf)
E        BB+ (sf)    BB (sf)        CCC (sf)      B+ (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Nob Hill CLO Ltd.

                     Rating      Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1     654883AA5    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2     654883AL1    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B       654883AC1    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C       654883AE7    AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
D       654883AG2    BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)
E       654883AJ6    B+ (sf)     B+ (sf)


NORTHWOODS CAPITAL XII: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Northwoods Capital XII Ltd./Northwoods Capital XII
LLC's $556.80 million floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly
syndicated senior-secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Aug. 4,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the preliminary 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
      (excluding 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 consists
      primarily of 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 preliminary rated notes, which S&P
      assessed using its cash flow analysis and assumptions
      commensurate with the assigned preliminary ratings under
      various interest-rate scenarios, including LIBOR ranging
      from 0.2341%-12.7531%.

   -- 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 reinvestment test, a failure of
      which will lead to the reclassification of up to 50.00% of
      excess interest proceeds that are available before paying
      uncapped administrative expenses and fees, collateral
      manager subordinated and incentive management fees, and
      subordinated note payments to principal proceeds to purchase
      additional collateral assets during the reinvestment period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Northwoods Capital XII Ltd./Northwoods Capital XII LLC

Class                 Rating                  Amount
                                            (mil. $)
A                     AAA (sf)                376.20
B                     AA (sf)                  69.60
C (deferrable)        A                        52.20
D (deferrable)        BBB (sf)                 30.00
E (deferrable)        BB (sf)                  28.80
Subordinate notes     NR                       59.00


NYLIM STRATFORD 2001-1: Moody's Cuts Class B Notes' Rating to Ba2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the rating on notes
issued by NYLIM Stratford CDO 2001-1 Ltd.:

$40,000,000 Class B Floating Rate Notes Due 2036 (current
outstanding balance of $16,688,511.40), Downgraded to Ba2 (sf);
previously on March 6, 2014 Baa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade.

NYLIM Stratford CDO 2001-1 Ltd., issued in April 2001, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of
bonds, REITs, Residential Mortgage Backed Securities and other
Asset Backed Securities originated in 1996 to 2004.

Ratings Rationale

The downgrade action is primarily due to the erosion of collateral
coverage available for the Class B notes, which is caused by the
diversion of principal proceeds to pay the Class C notes' interest
payments. As interest collections shrink due to a declining
collateral pool balance (because of deleveraging or defaults),
increasing amounts of principal proceeds are used to pay the Class
C interest payment, causing Class B par coverage deterioration.
Moody's expects the erosion of collateral coverage to continue.
Based on the July 2014 trustee report, the Class C Interest
Coverage test ratio is 60.0% compared to 70.6% as of August 2013.
On the July 2014 payment date, $0.33 million of principal proceeds
was used to make interest payments on the Class C notes.

Nevertheless, the deal benefits from the updates to Moody's SF CDO
methodology described in "Moody's Approach to Rating SF CDOs"
published on March 6, 2014. These updates include: (i) lowering
the resecuritization stress factors for RMBS (US Prime, Subprime,
Manufactured Housing), CDOs exposed to investment grade corporate
assets, and ABS backed by franchise loans or by mutual fund fees;
(ii) using a common table of recovery rates for all structured
finance assets (except for CMBS and SF CDO); and (iii) providing
more guidance on the rating caps Moody's apply to deals
experiencing event of default. In taking the foregoing actions,
Moody's also announced that it had concluded its review of its
rating on the issuer's Class B notes announced on March 6, 2014.
At that time, Moody's said that it had placed the rating on review
for upgrade as a result of the aforementioned methodology updates.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs," published in March 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Primary causes of uncertainty about assumptions are the extent
of any slowdown in growth in the current macroeconomic environment
and in the residential real estate property markets. The
residential real estate property market is subject to uncertainty
about housing prices; the pace of residential mortgage
foreclosures, loan modifications and refinancing; the unemployment
rate; and interest rates.

2) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds,
recoveries from defaulted assets, and excess interest proceeds
will continue and at what pace. Faster deleveraging than Moody's
expects could have a significant impact on the notes' ratings.

3) Recovery of defaulted assets: The amount of recoveries received
from defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that
Moody's assumes as having defaulted as well as the timing of these
recoveries create additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed
defaulted assets assuming no recoveries, and therefore,
realization of any recoveries in the future would positively
impact the notes' ratings.

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 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):

Ba1 and below ratings notched up by two rating notches:

Class B: 0

Ba1 and below ratings notched down by two notches:

Class B: 0

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applies a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM to model the loss distribution for SF CDOs. The simulated
defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo scenarios
define the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's then uses
the loss distribution as an input in the CDOEdge cash flow model.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par and
weighted average rating factor, 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 $25.7 million,
defaulted par of $4.2 million, a weighted average default
probability of 2.81% (implying a WARF of 509), a weighted average
spread of 1.95%, and a weighted average coupon of 7.67%.


OAKTREE CLO 2014-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on Oaktree
CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Oaktree CLO 2014-1 LLC's $462 million floating-
rate notes following the transaction's effective date as of
May 30, 2014.

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

"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 S&P's criteria to a combination of
purchased collateral, collateral committed to be purchased, and
the indicative portfolio of assets provided to S&P 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 added.

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 S&P deems
necessary.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Oaktree CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Oaktree CLO 2014-1 LLC

Class                      Rating                     Amount
                                                     (mil.$)
A-1                        AAA (sf)                   310.00
A-2A                       AA (sf)                     60.00
A-2B                       AA (sf)                     10.00
B (deferrable)             A (sf)                      35.00
C (deferrable)             BBB (sf)                    25.00
D (deferrable)             BB (sf)                     22.00


OFSI FUND VII: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to OFSI Fund VII Ltd./OFSI Fund VII LLC's $470.50 million
floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation
securitization backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of
broadly syndicated senior secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of July 30,
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 credit enhancement provided to the preliminary 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 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 consists
      primarily of 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 preliminary rated notes, which S&P
      assessed using its cash flow analysis and assumptions
      commensurate with the assigned preliminary ratings under
      various interest-rate scenarios, including LIBOR ranging
      from 0.234%-12.753%.

   -- 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.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

OFSI Fund VII Ltd./OFSI Fund VII LLC

Class                  Rating                    Amount
                                               (mil. $)
X                      AAA (sf)                    2.50
A                      AAA (sf)                  298.50
B (deferrable)         AA (sf)                    73.75
C (deferrable)         A (sf)                     36.00
D (deferrable)         BBB (sf)                   28.00
E (deferrable)         BB (sf)                    22.75
F (deferrable)         B (sf)                      9.00
Subordinated notes     NR                         51.50

NR-Not rated.


ONEMAIN FINANCIAL 2014-2: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class C Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to OneMain
Financial Issuance Trust 2014-2's $1.184 billion asset-backed
notes series 2014-2.

The note issuance is an asset-backed securities transaction backed
by personal consumer loan receivables.

The ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 54.8%, 47.4%, 42.3%, and
      34.7% credit support to the class A, B, C, and D notes,
      respectively, in the form of subordination,
      overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess
      spread.  These credit support levels are sufficient to
      withstand stresses commensurate with the ratings on the
      notes based on S&P's stressed cash flow scenarios.

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, the ratings on the class A, B, and C notes would
      remain within two rating categories of our 'A (sf)', 'BBB
      (sf)', and 'BB (sf)' ratings, respectively.  These potential
      rating movements are consistent with S&P's credit stability
      criteria, which outline the outer bounds of credit
      deterioration as equal to a two-category downgrade within
      the first year for 'A' through 'BB' rated securities under
      moderate stress conditions.

   -- The timely interest and full principal payments expected to
      be made under stressed cash flow modeling scenarios
      appropriate to the assigned ratings.

   -- The characteristics of the pool being securitized.

   -- The operational risks associated with OneMain Financial
      Inc.'s decentralized business model.

   -- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

OneMain Financial Issuance Trust 2014-2

Class     Rating       Type            Interest         Amount
                                       rate           (mil. $)
A         A (sf)       Senior          Fixed           875.000
B         BBB (sf)     Subordinate     Fixed           118.430
C         BB (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed            69.080
D         B (sf)       Subordinate     Fixed           121.710


OZLM VIII: Moody's Assigns '(P)B2' Rating on $10MM Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service assigned the following provisional
ratings to notes to be issued by OZLM VIII, Ltd.:

$315,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$34,000,000 Class A-2a Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-2a Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

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

$28,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$28,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$25,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B2 (sf)

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 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 (collectively, the "Rated
Notes") address the expected losses posed to the holders of the
Rated Notes. The provisional ratings reflect the risks due to
defaults on the underlying portfolio of loans, the transaction's
legal structure, and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

OZLM VIII 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 be
invested in senior secured loans and eligible investments and up
to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The underlying collateral pool is expected to be
approximately 75% ramped as of the closing date.

Och-Ziff Loan Management LP ("Och-Ziff" or the "Manager") will
direct the selection, acquisition and disposition of collateral 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 or credit improved
obligations, and are subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue one class of
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 February 2014.

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

Par amount of $500,000,000

Diversity of 55

WARF of 2550

Weighted Average Spread of 3.85%

Weighted Average Coupon of 7.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate of 43%

Weighted Average Life of 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
February 2014.

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 an 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), holding all other factors equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2550 to 2933)

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: 0

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2550 to 3315)

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: -3

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. Moody's assigned
this V Score in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash-flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009, available on
www.moodys.com.

Moody's V Score provides 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 Score applies to the entire transaction,
rather than individual tranches.


PASADENA CDO: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class C Notes to 'Ca'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Pasadena CDO Ltd.:

$66,500,000 Class B Floating Rate Notes Due June 21, 2037
(current outstanding of $33,149,869), Upgraded to Baa1 (sf);
previously on April 24, 2013 Affirmed Caa3 (sf);

$26,500,000 Class C Floating Rate Notes Due June 21, 2037(current
outstanding of $30,546,906), Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on
April 24, 2013 Downgraded to C (sf).

Pasadena CDO Ltd., issued in June 2002, is a collateralized debt
obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of RMBS and other types
of asset-backed securities ("ABS") originated from 1997 to 2005.

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily due to the deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ("OC") ratios since January 2014. The Class B
notes have been paid down by approximately 44%, or $26 million,
since January 2014. A large proportion of the principal proceeds
used in the paydown, or approximately $18 million, was received
from the sale of defaulted assets in February 2014. The realized
recoveries on these defaulted assets were higher than previously
assumed. As a result, the Class B OC ratio, which did not account
for the realized recoveries, increased significantly since January
2014. Based on the trustee's June 30, 2014 report, the OC ratios
for the Class B and Class C notes are 126.81% and 66.00%
respectively, compared to 85.79% and 56.43% respectively, in
January 2014. The credit quality of the underlying portfolio has
been stable since January 2014.

Moody's also notes that the current portfolio is generating excess
interest proceeds, which is being used to pay down the Class B
notes as a result of the failure of the Class C OC test. On the
last payment date in June 2014, $0.25 million of interest proceeds
were diverted to pay the principal on Class B notes. Additionally,
the periodic interest on the Class C notes is current, although $4
million of deferred interest remains outstanding.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs," published in March 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: Primary causes of uncertainty about
assumptions are the extent of any slowdown in growth in the
current macroeconomic environment and in the commercial and
residential real estate property markets. Although the commercial
real estate property markets are gaining momentum, consistent
growth will be unlikely until the volume of transactions
increases, distressed properties are cleared from the pipeline and
job creation rebounds. The residential real estate property market
is subject to uncertainty about housing prices; the pace of
residential mortgage foreclosures, loan modifications and
refinancing; the unemployment rate; and interest rates.

2) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds,
recoveries from defaulted assets, and excess interest proceeds
will continue and at what pace. Faster deleveraging than Moody's
expects could have a significant impact on the notes' ratings.

3) Lack of portfolio granularity: The performance of the portfolio
depends to a large extent on the credit conditions of a few large
obligors Moody's rates Baa1 or lower, especially if they jump to
default.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applies a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM to model the loss distribution for SF CDOs. The simulated
defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo scenarios
define the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's then uses
the loss distribution as an input in the CDOEdge cash flow model.

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):

Ba1 and below ratings notched up by two rating notches (406):

Class B: +1

Class C: 0

Ba1 and below ratings notched down by two notches (801):

Class B: -1

Class C: 0


PEGASUS AVIATION: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Securities to 'Ca'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's has downgraded the ratings of the Pegasus Aviation Lease
Securitization III (PALS III), Series 2001-1 Class A-1 and A-2
Notes issued by issued by PALS III.

The complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: Pegasus Aviation Lease Securitization III (PALS III),
Series 2001-1

Class A-1, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Nov 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Class A-2, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Nov 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The downgrade reflects the continued increase in loan-to-value
ratio (LTV) of the Classes A-1 and A-2 Notes, and Moody's
expectation about the pace of future note amortization. The
portfolio consists of older aircraft with a weighted average age
of 18 years. The LTV for the Class A Notes is now in the mid-190%
range, assuming 10% per annum depreciation of the aircraft since
the last appraisal which was December 2013. When the reserve
accounts are taken into consideration, the LTV is in the high-160%
range.

The portfolio consists of 25 aircraft and 2 engines with a 30%
concentration in Boeing 757s, 28% in Airbus 320s, and 27% in
B767s, weighted by aircraft value. The remainder of the portfolio
consists of B727, B737, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, MD-11, MD-82, MD-
83, and MD-87 aircraft. 57% of the portfolio were manufactured
prior to 1998, and 3% of the portfolio are currently on the
ground.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach To Pooled Aircraft-Backed Securitization" published in
March 1999.

Primary sources of uncertainty include the global economic
environment, aircraft lease income generating ability, aircraft
maintenance and other expenses to the trust, and valuation for the
aircraft backing the transaction.

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

  Changes to lease rates or aircraft values that differ from
  historical and current trends.


PHOENIX CLO III: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. E Notes to 'Ba3'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Phoenix CLO III, Ltd.:

  $33,000,000 Class B Senior Notes Due July 17, 2019, Upgraded to
  Aaa (sf); previously on July 11, 2013 Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

  $24,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Notes Due July 17,
  2019, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on July 11, 2013
  Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

  $19,000,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Notes Due July 17,
  2019, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on July 11, 2013
  Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

  $13,000,000 Class E Deferrable Junior Notes Due July 17, 2019,
  Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on July 11, 2013 Affirmed
  B1 (sf)

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

  $336,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Notes Due July 17, 2019 (current
  outstanding balance of $136,861,869), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
  previously on July 11, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $37,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Notes Due July 17, 2019, Affirmed
  Aaa (sf); previously on July 11, 2013 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Phoenix CLO III, Ltd., issued in May 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in July
2013.

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 January 2014. The Class A-1 notes
have been paid down by approximately 53.6% or $158 million since
that time. Based on the trustee's July 2014 report, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class A/B, Class C and Class
D notes are reported at 126.9%, 116.1%, and 108.7%, respectively,
versus January 2014 levels of 118.7%, 111.3%, and 106.2%,
respectively. The overcollateralization ratios reported in the
trustee report do not include the July 2014 payment distribution
when $51.2 million of principal proceeds were used to pay down the
Class A-1 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
February 2014.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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% (2171)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +2

Class D: +2

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3257)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -2

Class D: -1

Class E: -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 February 2014.

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 $275.7 million, defaulted
par of $8.5 million, a weighted average default probability of
16.65% (implying a WARF of 2714), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 52.07%, a diversity score of 53 and a weighted
average spread of 3.23%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for CLO securities as published in "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs". In some cases, alternative recovery
assumptions may be considered based on the specifics of the
analysis of the CLO transaction. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


PREFERRED TERM IX: Moody's Raises Ratings on 3 Note Classes to B3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Preferred Term Securities IX, Ltd.:

  $42,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-2 Senior Notes Due April 3,
  2033, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Aa2
  (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $33,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class A-3 Senior Notes Due
  April 3, 2033, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on June 26,
  2014 Aa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $86,000,000 Floating Rate Class B-1 Mezzanine Notes Due April
  3, 2033, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Caa1
  (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $16,250,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
  April 3, 2033, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014
  Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $66,250,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-3 Mezzanine Notes Due
  April 3, 2033, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014
  Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

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

  $245,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-1 Senior Notes Due April 3,
  2033 (current outstanding balance of $21,728,614), Affirmed Aaa
  (sf); previously on August 9, 2013 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Preferred Term Securities IX, Ltd., issued in March 2003 is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank trust
preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDOs methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to
Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect
deleveraging of the Class A-1 notes, an increase in the
transaction's over-collateralization ratios and the resumption of
interest payments of previously deferring assets since August
2013.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology, including (1) removing the 25% macro default
probability stress for bank TruPS; (2) expanding the default
timing profiles from one to six probability-weighted scenarios;
(3) incorporating a redemption profile for bank TruPS; (4) using a
loss distribution generated by Moody's CDOROM for deals that do
not permit reinvestment; and (5) giving full par credit to
deferring bank TruPS that meet certain criteria.

In addition, the Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately
69.6% or $49.8 million since December 2013, using principal
proceeds from the redemption of the underlying assets and the
diversion of excess interest proceeds. The Class A-1 notes' par
coverage has thus improved to 1134.7% by Moody's calculations.
Based on the trustee's July 2014 payment report, the over-
collateralization ratio of the Class A notes was 246.6% (limit
128.0%), versus 182.4%% in December 2013. The Class A-1 notes will
continue to benefit from the diversion of excess interest due to a
unique structural feature where the notes will be paid in note
payment sequence if the decrease of the aggregate principal amount
of the collateral since closing date exceeds the decrease of the
aggregate principal amount of the outstanding notes since closing
date. In addition, the Class A-1 notes benefit from the use of
proceeds from redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool.

The total par amount that Moody's treated as having defaulted or
deferring declined to $ 77.78 million from $101.3 million in
December 2013. Since December 2013, three previously deferring
banks with a total par of $15.5 million have resumed making
interest payments on their TruPS.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class A-2,
Class A-3, Class B-1, Class B-2 and Class B-3 notes announced on
June 26, 2014. At that time, Moody's had placed the ratings on
review for possible upgrade as a result of the aforementioned
methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par (after
treating deferring securities as performing if they meet certain
criteria) of $246.6 million, defaulted/deferring par of $77.8
million, a weighted average default probability of 8.56% (implying
a WARF of 782), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default
of 10.0%. In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's
explicitly models, qualitative factors are part of rating
committee considerations. Moody's considers the structural
protections in the transaction, the risk of an event of default,
recent deal performance under current market conditions, the legal
environment and specific documentation features. All information
available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts,
inputs from other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and
judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on
the transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks that Moody's does not rate
publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that do not
have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an econometric
model developed by Moody's Analytics, to derive credit scores.
Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank obligors
in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014 financial data.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 509)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: +1

Class A-3: +1

Class B-1: +1

Class B-2: +1

Class B-3: +1

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1197)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class A-3: 0

Class B-1: -1

Class B-2: -1

Class B-3: -1


PREFERRED TERM X: Moody's Hikes Ratings on 3 Note Classes to Caa1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Preferred Term Securities X, Ltd.:

$287,000,000 Floating Rate Class A 1 Senior Notes Due July 3,
2033 (current outstanding balance of $65,572,405), Upgraded to Aaa
(sf); previously on September 26, 2013 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

$67,000,000 Floating Rate Class A 2 Senior Notes Due July 3,
2033, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on September 26, 2013
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

$2,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class A 3 Senior Notes Due July 3,
2033, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on September 26, 2013
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

$88,000,000 Floating Rate Class B 1 Mezzanine Notes Due July 3,
2033, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Caa3 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$19,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B 2 Mezzanine Notes Due
July 3, 2033, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014
Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$70,500,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B 3 Mezzanine Notes Due
July 3, 2033, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014
Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Preferred Term Securities X, Ltd., issued in June 2003, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank trust
preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDOs methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to
Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect
deleveraging of the Class A-1 notes, an increase in the
transaction's over-collateralization ratios and the resumption of
interest payments of previously deferring assets since September
2013.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology, including (1) removing the 25% macro default
probability stress for bank TruPS; (2) expanding the default
timing profiles from one to six probability-weighted scenarios;
(3) incorporating a redemption profile for bank TruPS; (4) using a
loss distribution generated by Moody's CDOROM for deals that do
not permit reinvestment; and (5) giving full par credit to
deferring bank TruPS that meet certain criteria.

In addition, the Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately
23.9% or $20.6 million since December 2013 using principal
proceeds from the redemption of the underlying assets and the
diversion of excess interest proceeds. The Class A-1 notes' par
coverage has thus improved to 398.7% by Moody's calculations.
Based on the trustee's July 2014 payment report, the over-
collateralization ratio of the Class A notes was 173.42% (limit
128.0%), versus 167.2% in December 2013. The Class A-1 notes will
continue to benefit from the diversion of excess interest due to a
unique structural feature where the notes will be paid in note
payment sequence if the decrease of the aggregate principal amount
of the collateral since closing date exceeds the decrease of the
aggregate principal amount of the outstanding notes since closing
date. In addition, the Class A-1 notes benefit from the use of
proceeds from redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool.

The total par amount that Moody's treated as having defaulted or
deferring declined to $86.0 million from $131.5 million in
December 2013. Since December 2013 trustee report, three
previously deferring bank with a total par of $15.0 million has
resumed making interest payments on its' TruPS.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class B-1,
Class B-2 and Class B-3 notes announced on June 26, 2014. At that
time, Moody's had placed the ratings on review for possible
upgrade as a result of the aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par (after
treating deferring securities as performing if they meet certain
criteria) of $261.4 million, defaulted/deferring par of $86.0
million, a weighted average default probability of 6.68% (implying
a WARF of 598), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default
of 10%. In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly
models, qualitative factors are part of rating committee
considerations. Moody's considers the structural protections in
the transaction, the risk of an event of default, recent deal
performance under current market conditions, the legal environment
and specific documentation features. All information available to
rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from
other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments
regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on the
transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks that Moody's does not rate
publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that do not
have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an econometric
model developed by Moody's Analytics, to derive credit scores.
Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank obligors
in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014 financial data.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 383)

Class A-1: +1

Class A-2: 0

Class A-3: 0

Class B-1: +1

Class B-2: +1

Class B-3: +1

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 902)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class A-3: 0

Class B-1: -1

Class B-2: -1

Class B-3: -1


PREFERRED TERM XI: Moody's Raises Rating on 3 Note Classes to B2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Preferred Term Securities XI, Ltd.:

  $343,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-1 Senior Notes Due September
  24, 2033 (current balance of $169,358,599), Upgraded to Aaa
  (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Aa2 (sf) Placed Under Review
  for Possible Upgrade

  $70,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-2 Senior Notes Due September
  24, 2033, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 A1
  (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $124,500,000 Floating Rate Class B-1 Mezzanine Notes Due
  September 24, 2033, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on June 26,
  2014 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $13,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
  September 24, 2033, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on June 26,
  2014 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  $65,500,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-3 Mezzanine Notes Due
  September 24, 2033, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on June 26,
  2014 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Preferred Term Securities XI, Ltd., issued in September 2003, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank trust
preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of the updates to
Moody's TruPS CDOs methodology described in "Moody's Approach to
Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014, the deleveraging of the
Class A-1 notes, an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios and the resumption of interest payments
of previously deferring assets since September 2013.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology described in "Moody's Approach to Rating TruPS
CDOs" published in June 2014. These updates include: (1) removing
the 25% macro default probability stress for bank and insurance
TruPS; (2) expanding the default timing profiles from one to six
probability-weighted scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption
profile for bank and insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss
distribution generated by Moody's CDOROM for deals that do not
permit reinvestment; and (5) giving full par credit to deferring
bank TruPS that meet certain criteria.

In addition, the Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately
24.4% or $54.5 million since September 2013, using principal
proceeds from the redemption of the underlying assets and the
diversion of excess interest proceeds. Due to the methodology
update mentioned above, Moody's gave full par credit in its
analysis to three deferring assets that meet certain criteria,
totaling $23.0 million in par. As a result, the Class A-1 notes'
par coverage has thus improved to 238.9% from 178.7% since
September 2013, by Moody's calculations. Based on the trustee's
June 2014 report, the over-collateralization ratio of the Class A
notes was 159.4% (limit 128.0%), versus 136.1% in September 2013.
The Class A-1 notes will continue to benefit from the diversion of
excess interest and the use of proceeds from redemptions of any
assets in the collateral pool.

The deal has also benefited from improvement in the credit quality
of the underlying portfolio. The total par amount that Moody's
treated as having defaulted declined to $86.5 million (after
giving par credit to deferring securities that meet certain
criteria) from $167.3 million in September 2013. Since September
2013, four previously deferring banks with a total par of $26.0
million has resumed making interest payments on their TruPS; two
assets with a total par of $38.0 million have redeemed at par.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class A
Notes and Class B Notes announced on June 24, 2014. At that time,
Moody's had placed the ratings on review for upgrade as a result
of the aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par (after
giving par credit to deferring securities that meet certain
criteria) of $404.6 million, defaulted/deferring par of $86.5
million, a weighted average default probability of 9.6% (implying
a WARF of 694), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default
of 10%. In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly
models, qualitative factors are part of rating committee
considerations. Moody's considers the structural protections in
the transaction, the risk of an event of default, recent deal
performance under current market conditions, the legal environment
and specific documentation features. All information available to
rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from
other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments
regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on the
transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc or credit
estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are subject
to additional estimation uncertainty.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks companies that Moody's does not
rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that
do not have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an
econometric model developed by Moody's Analytics, to derive credit
scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank
obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014 financial data.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 442)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B-1: +2

Class B-2: +2

Class B-3: +2

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1155)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: -1

Class B-1: -2

Class B-2: -2

Class B-3: -2


PREFERRED TERM XII: Moody's Hikes Rating on 3 Note Classes to B3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Preferred Term Securities XII, Ltd.:

$64,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-2 Senior Notes Due December 24,
2033, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 A1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$10,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class A-3 Senior Notes Due
December 24, 2033, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on June 26,
2014 A1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$17,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class A-4 Senior Notes Due
December 24, 2033, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on June 26,
2014 A1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$204,400,000 Floating Rate Class B-1 Mezzanine Notes Due December
24, 2033, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Caa3
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$20,500,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
December 24, 2033, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on June 26,
2014 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$37,700,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-3 Mezzanine Notes Due
December 24, 2033), Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on June 26,
2014 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Moody's also confirmed the rating on the following notes:

$442,400,000 Floating Rate Class A-1 Senior Notes Due December
24, 2033 (current balance of $193,601,309), Confirmed at Aa1 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 Aa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

Preferred Term Securities XII, Ltd., issued on December 17, 2003,
is a collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank
trust preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of the updates to
Moody's TruPS CDOs methodology described in "Moody's Approach to
Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014, the deleveraging of the
Class A-1 notes, an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios and the resumption of interest payments
of previously deferring assets since August 2013.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology described in "Moody's Approach to Rating TruPS
CDOs" published in June 2014. These updates include: (1) removing
the 25% macro default probability stress for bank and insurance
TruPS; (2) expanding the default timing profiles from one to six
probability-weighted scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption
profile for bank and insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss
distribution generated by Moody's CDOROM(TM) for deals that do not
permit reinvestment; and (5) giving full par credit to deferring
bank TruPS that meet certain criteria.

In addition, the Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately
14.2% or $32.1 million since August 2013, using principal proceeds
from the redemption of the underlying assets and the diversion of
excess interest proceeds. Due to the methodology update mentioned
above, Moody's gave full par credit in its analysis to six
deferring assets that meet certain criteria, totaling $30.5
million in par. As a result, the Class A-1 notes' par coverage has
thus improved to 237.9% from 202.0% since August 2013, by Moody's
calculations. Based on the trustee's June 2014 report, the over-
collateralization ratio of the Class A notes was 151.1% (limit
128.0%), versus 144.0% in August 2013. The deferred interest on
Class B notes has been fully repaid since August 2013. The Class
A-1 notes will continue to benefit from the diversion of excess
interest and the use of proceeds from redemptions of any assets in
the collateral pool.

The deal has also benefited from improvement in the credit quality
of the underlying portfolio. The total par amount that Moody's
treated as having defaulted declined to $119.6 million (after
giving par credit to deferring securities that meet certain
criteria) from $203.6 million in August 2013. Since August 2013,
one previously deferring bank with a total par of $2.5 million has
resumed making interest payments on their TruPS; three assets with
a total par of $20.5 million have redeemed at par.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class A
Notes and Class B Notes announced on June 26, 2014. At that time,
Moody's had placed the ratings on review for upgrade as a result
of the aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par (after
giving par credit to deferring securities that meet certain
criteria) of $460.5 million, defaulted/deferring par of $119.6
million, a weighted average default probability of 8.6% (implying
a WARF of 597), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default
of 10%. In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly
models, qualitative factors are part of rating committee
considerations. Moody's considers the structural protections in
the transaction, the risk of an event of default, recent deal
performance under current market conditions, the legal environment
and specific documentation features. All information available to
rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from
other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments
regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on the
transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional estimation uncertainty..

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs. The
simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks companies that Moody's does not
rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that
do not have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an
econometric model developed by Moody's Analytics, to derive credit
scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank
obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014 financial data.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 365)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class A-3: 0

Class A-4: 0

Class B-1: +2

Class B-2: +2

Class B-3: +2

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 923)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: -1

Class A-3: -1

Class A-4: -1

Class B-1: -1

Class B-2: -1

Class B-3: -1


PREFERRED TERM XVIII: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. B Secs. to Ba3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Preferred Term Securities XVIII, Ltd.:

  $372,100,000 Class A-1 Senior Notes Due 2035 (current
  outstanding balance of $250,971,965.92), Upgraded to A1 (sf);
  previously on June 26, 2014 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review for
  Possible Upgrade

  $87,900,000 Class A-2 Senior Notes Due 2035 (current
  outstanding balance of $86,460,334.64), Upgraded to A3 (sf);
  previously on November 8, 2013 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

  $78,800,000 Class B Mezzanine Notes (current outstanding
  balance of $77,509,378.48), Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on
  June 26, 2014 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
  Upgrade

Preferred Term Securities XVIII, Ltd., issued in June 2005, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank,
insurance trust preferred securities (TruPS) and TruPS CDO
tranches.

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDOs methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to
Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect
deleveraging of the A-1 notes, an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization ratios and resumption of interest payments
of previously deferring assets since November 2013.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology, including (1) removing the current 25% macro
default probability stress for bank and insurance TruPS; (2)
expanding the default timing profiles from one to six probability-
weighted scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption profile for
bank and insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss distribution generated
by Moody's CDOROM(TM) for deals that do not permit reinvestment;
(5) giving full par credit to deferring bank TruPS that meet
certain criteria; and (6) raising the assumed recovery rate for
insurance TruPS.

In addition, the Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately
12% or $34.6 million since November 2013, using principal proceeds
from the redemption of the underlying assets and the diversion of
excess interest proceeds. Due to the methodology update mentioned
above, Moody's gave full par credit in its analysis to one
deferring asset that met certain criteria, totaling $2 million in
par. As a result, the Class A-1 notes' par coverage has thus
improved to 182.82% from 172.26% since November 2013, by Moody's
calculations. Based on the trustee's June 2014 report, the over-
collateralization ratio of the Class A notes was 135.41% (limit
128.0%), the Class B notes, 110.11% (limit 115.0%), and the Class
C notes, 91.08% (limit 107.0%) versus 120.78%, 98.95% and 83.27%
respectively in November 2013. The Class A-1 notes will benefit
from proceeds from redemptions of any assets in the collateral
pool. The Class A-1, A-2 and B notes will continue to benefit from
the diversion of excess interest as long as the class B
overcollateralization test continues to fail.

The total par amount that Moody's treated as having defaulted or
deferring declined to $150.32 million from $186.32 million in
November 2013. Since November 2013, five previously deferring
banks with a total par of $36 million have resumed making interest
payments on their TruPS; five assets with a total par of $30.68
million have wholly or partially redeemed at par.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class A-1
Notes and Class B Notes and announced on June 26, 2014. At that
time, Moody's had placed the ratings on review for upgrade as a
result of the aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par and
principal proceeds balance (after treating deferring securities as
performing if they meet certain criteria) of $457.98 million,
defaulted/deferring par of $150.32 million, a weighted average
default probability of 10.38% (implying a WARF of 945), and a
weighted average recovery rate upon default of 9.72%. In addition
to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models, qualitative
factors are part of rating committee considerations. Moody's
considers the structural protections in the transaction, the risk
of an event of default, recent deal performance under current
market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector. Moody's maintains its stable outlook on the US insurance
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs. The
simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge cash
flow model. CDOROM v. 2.13.1 is available on www.moodys.com under
Products and Solutions -- Analytical models, upon receipt of a
signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly of TruPS issued by small
to medium sized U.S. community banks and insurance companies that
Moody's does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of
bank TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc,
an econometric model developed by Moody's KMV, to derive credit
scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank
obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014 financial data. For
insurance TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's relies on
the assessment of its Insurance team, based on the credit analysis
of the underlying insurance firms' annual statutory financial
reports.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 608)

Class A-1: +2

Class A-2: +2

Class B: +2

Class C: 0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1470)

Class A-1: -1

Class A-2: -3

Class B: -3

Class C: 0


PREFERRED TERM XXI: Moody's Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to Ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Preferred Term Securities XXI, Ltd.:

$413,500,000 Floating Rate Class A-1 Senior Notes Due 2038
(current balance of $294,521,501.18), Upgraded to A2 (sf);
previously on February 7, 2014 Upgraded to A3 (sf)

$105,300,000 Floating Rate Class A-2 Senior Notes Due 2038
Current balance of $103,513,025.11), Upgraded to Baa1 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 Baa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$46,000,000 Floating Rate Class B-1 Mezzanine Notes Due 2038
(current balance of $45,555,100.78), Upgraded to B3 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$35,800,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
2038 (current balance of $35,933,318.20), Upgraded to B3 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$48,500,000 Floating Rate Class C-1 Mezzanine Notes Due 2038
(current balance of $52,392,172.95), Upgraded to Ca (sf);
previously on June 28, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

$28,350,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class C-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
2038 (current balance of $33,768,278.10), Upgraded to Ca (sf);
previously on June 28, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Preferred Term Securities XXI, Ltd., issued in March 2006, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of
bank and insurance trust preferred securities.

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDOs methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to
Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect
deleveraging of the Class A-1 Notes, an increase in the
transaction's over-collateralization ratios and resumption of
interest payments of previously deferring assets since the rating
action in February 2014.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology, including (1) removing the current 25% macro
default probability stress for bank and insurance TruPS; (2)
expanding the default timing profiles from one to six probability-
weighted scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption profile for
bank and insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss distribution generated
by Moody's CDOROM for deals that do not permit reinvestment; (5)
giving full par credit to deferring bank TruPS that meet certain
criteria; and (6) raising the assumed recovery rate for insurance
TruPS.

In addition, the Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately
$15 million since February 2014 using principal proceeds from the
sale of two underlying assets. The Class A-1 notes' par coverage
has thus improved to 174.65% from 161.30% as calculated by
Moody's. Based on the trustee's June 2014 report, the over-
collateralization ratios of the Senior Notes, Class B Notes, Class
C Notes and Class D Notes are 134.70%, 111.81%, 94.78% and 84.73%
respectively versus December 2013 trustee reported levels of
127.87%, 105.18%, 89.85% and 80.73%, respectively. The Class A-1
notes will continue to benefit from the diversion of excess
interest and the use of proceeds from the sale of any assets in
the collateral pool.

The total par amount that Moody's treated as having defaulted or
deferring declined to $160 million from $199 million in February
2014. Since then three previously deferring banks with a total par
of $28 million have resumed making interest payments on their
TruPS and one asset with a total par of $13.6 million has redeemed
at par.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class A-2
Notes, Class B-1 Notes and Class B-2 Notes announced on June 26,
2014. At that time, Moody's had placed the ratings on review for
upgrade as a result of the aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par of $514.4
million, defaulted/deferring par of $160 million, a weighted
average default probability of 8.57% (implying a WARF of 865) and
a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10%. In addition
to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models, qualitative
factors are part of rating committee considerations. Moody's
considers the structural protections in the transaction, the risk
of an event of default, recent deal performance under current
market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector. Moody's maintains its stable outlook on the US insurance
sector.

2) Credit risk: Credit performance of the assets collateralizing
the transaction that is better than Moody's current expectations
could have a positive impact on the transaction's performance.
Conversely, asset credit performance weaker than Moody's current
expectations could have adverse consequences on the transaction's
performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks and insurance companies that
Moody's does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of
bank TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses
RiskCalc(TM), an econometric model developed by Moody's KMV, to
derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of
most of the bank obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014
financial data. For insurance TruPS that do not have public
ratings, Moody's relies on the assessment of its Insurance team,
based on the credit analysis of the underlying insurance firms'
annual statutory financial reports. For REIT TruPS that do not
have public ratings, Moody's REIT group assesses their credit
quality using the REIT firms' annual financials.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 597)

Class A-1: +1

Class A-2: +1

Class B-1: +2

Class B-2: +2

Class C-1: 0

Class C-2: 0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1087)

Class A-1: -1

Class A-2: -1

Class B-1: -1

Class B-2: -1

Class C-1: 0

Class C-2: 0


PRETSL COMBINATION: Moody's Ups $7.7MM Combi Certs Rating to Caa1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following combination notes issued by PreTSL Combination
Certificates:

$7,715,000 Combination Certificates, Series P XVIII-3 due
September 23, 2035 (current rated balance of $5,318,902.95),
Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed
Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$9,000,000 Combination Certificates, Series P XIX-4 due December
22, 2035 (current rated balance of $6,372,406.89), Upgraded to
Caa2 (sf); previously on October 31, 2013 Affirmed Ca (sf)

PreTSL Combination Certificates, Series P XVIII-3, a combination
note security, was issued in July 2006 and comprises $3.5 million
of Class B notes and $4.215 million of subordinated income notes
issued by Preferred Term Securities XVIII, Ltd, a TruPS CDO.

PreTSL Combination Certificates, Series P XIX-4, a combination
note security, was issued in July 2006 and comprises $4.0 million
of Class B notes and $5.0 million of subordinated income notes
issued by Preferred Term Securities XIX, Ltd., a TruPS CDO.

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of recent changes in the
ratings of the underlying securities backing the two combination
note securities. The ratings on the combination notes are based on
the credit quality of their respective underlying components and
the legal structure of the transaction.

The Class B note in Preferred Term Securities XVIII, Ltd, the
underlying component in Series P XVIII-3, was upgraded to Ba3 (sf)
from Caa3 (sf) on August 4, 2014. In addition, the Class B note in
Preferred Term Securities XIX, Ltd, the underlying component in
Series P XIX-3, was upgraded to B1 (sf) from Caa2 (sf) on July 25,
2014. These rating actions on the underlying transactions were
primarily a result of updates to Moody's TruPS CDOs methodology,
as described in "Moody's Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs" published
in June 2014.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its rating on the Combination
Certificates, Series P XVIII-3 announced on June 26, 2014. At that
time, Moody's had placed the rating on review for upgrade as a
result of the aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In addition to the quantitative
factors Moody's explicitly models, qualitative factors are part of
rating committee considerations. Moody's considers the structural
protections in the transaction, the risk of an event of default,
recent deal performance under current market conditions, the legal
environment and specific documentation features. All information
available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts,
inputs from other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and
judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on
the transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector. Moody's maintains its stable outlook on the US insurance
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of the referenced CDOs contains mainly TruPS issued
by small to medium sized U.S. community banks and insurance
companies that Moody's does not rate publicly. To evaluate the
credit quality of bank TruPS that do not have public ratings,
Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an econometric model developed by
Moody's KMV, to derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the
credit risk of most of the bank obligors in the pool relies on
FDIC Q1-2014 financial data. For insurance TruPS that do not have
public ratings, Moody's relies on the assessment of its Insurance
team, based on the credit analysis of the underlying insurance
firms' annual statutory financial reports.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 608 for Series P XVIII-3 and
WARF 623 for Series P XIX-4)

Series P XVIII-3: +2

Series P XIX-4: +1

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1470 for Series P
XVIII-3 and WARF 1426 for Series P XIX-4)

Series P XVIII-3: -2

Series P XIX-4: -3


RALI RMBS: Moody's Takes Action on $78MM RMBS Issued 2002-2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of 23
tranches issued by three RALI RMBS transaction backed by Alt-A
RMBS loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: RALI Series 2002-QS13 Trust

A-1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013 Downgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

A-2, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013 Downgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

A-7, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013 Downgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

A-7A, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013 Downgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

A-8, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013 Downgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

A-P, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013 Downgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

A-V, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Issuer: RALI Series 2003-QS11 Trust

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-4, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-5, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-6, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-8, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. A-9, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-10, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-11, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-12, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. A-13, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. A-14, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-P, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-V, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: RALI Series 2003-QS18 Trust

A-1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012 Downgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

A-P, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012 Downgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The 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 due to weaker collateral
performance.

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 6.1% in June 2014 from 7.5% in
June 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.


RED RIVER: Moody's Hikes Rating on $31.5MM Class E Notes to Ba2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Red River CLO Ltd.:

  $45,000,000 Class B Floating Rate Senior Secured Extendable
  Notes Due 2018, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on July 24,
  2013 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

  $40,500,000 Class C Floating Rate Senior Secured Deferrable
  Interest Extendable Notes Due 2018, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf);
  previously on July 24, 2013 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

  $45,000,000 Class D Floating Rate Senior Secured Deferrable
  Interest Extendable Notes Due 2018, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf);
  previously on July 24, 2013 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

  $31,500,000 Class E Floating Rate Senior Secured Deferrable
  Interest Extendable Notes Due 2018 (current outstanding balance
  of $26,342,207.08), Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on July
  18, 2014 Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

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

  $657,000,000 Class A Floating Rate Senior Secured Extendable
  Notes Due 2018 (current outstanding balance of $346,137,596),
  Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 24, 2013 Upgraded to Aaa
  (sf)

Red River CLO Ltd., issued in August 2006, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in
August 2013.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization (OC) ratios since January 2014. Since then, the
Class A notes have been paid down by approximately 32.9% or $186.8
million. Based on June 2014 trustee report, the OC ratios for the
Class A/B, Class C, Class D and Class E notes are reported at
134.8%, 122.1%, 110.6% and 104.8%, respectively, versus January
2014 levels of 125.1%, 116.9%, 109.0% and 104.8%, respectively.

The deal has also benefited from an improvement in the credit
quality of the portfolio since January 2014. Based on the
trustee's June 2014 report, the weighted average rating factor
(WARF) is currently 2315 compared to 2569 in January 2014.

The portfolio includes a number of investments in securities that
mature after the notes do. Based on the trustee's June 2014
report, securities that mature after the notes do currently make
up approximately 8.2% of the portfolio. These investments could
expose the notes to market risk in the event of liquidation when
the notes mature.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's announced that it had
concluded its review of its rating on the issuer's Class E Notes
announced on July 18, 2014. At that time, Moody's said that it had
placed the rating on review as a result of a change in the
methodology Moody's uses to estimate recovery rates for structured
finance securities including CLO notes in a CDO or CLO
transaction. Moody's latest Structured Finance CDO methodology
continues to differentiate recovery rates of CLO tranches by their
current rating and tranche size, but the updated recovery rates
are lower than previously assumed. The upgrade of the Class E
notes is due to substantial deleveraging of the senior notes and
increases in OC ratios, which offset the impact from lower
recovery rates assumed on CLO tranches.

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
February 2014.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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% (2027)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: +3

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3041)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -1

Class D: -1

Class E: -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 February 2014.

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 $514.3 million, defaulted
par of $67.9 million, a weighted average default probability of
14.1% (implying a WARF of 2534), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 51.0%, a diversity score of 33 and a weighted
average spread of 3.3%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for CLO securities as published in "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs." In some cases, alternative recovery
assumptions may be considered based on the specifics of the
analysis of the CLO transaction. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on Class C Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following definitive
ratings to notes issued by Resource Capital Corp. 2014-CRE2, Ltd.

Cl. A, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Class A, Class B, and Class C Notes address
the expected loss posed to noteholders. The 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.

Resource Capital Corp. 2014-CRE2, Ltd. is a static cash flow CRE
CLO. The issued notes are collateralized by a pool of 16
commercial real estate loans in the form of whole loans and pari-
passu participations. All of the assets are ramped as of the
closing date with a par amount of $353,901,000. The related pari-
passu participation interests are held outside of the trust and
total $44,424,000. The Issuer may acquire these related pari-passu
participation interests once they are funded by using transaction
pre-payments, if any, through July 2016. The assets are floating
rate with a 5.048% weighted average spread over one-month LIBOR.
The transaction closed on July 30, 2014.

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC will act as operating advisor to
the asset pool during the life of the transaction. Resource Real
Estate Funding, Inc. originated all of the collateral loans.
Resource Real Estate, Inc. will act as special servicer and an
affiliate company, RCC Real Estate, Inc., will act as advancing
agent. Wells Fargo Bank, NA will act as servicer and back-up
advancing agent on the underlying collateral.

The transaction incorporates overcollateralization triggers which,
subject to transaction performance, divert interest proceeds to
pay down the Class A and Class B Notes.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CLO pool.
We have completed credit assessments for all of the collateral.
Moody's modeled a WARF of 4213.

Moody's modeled to a WAL of 4.9 years as of the closing date.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 56.7%.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 33.5% corresponding to a pair-wise
correlation of 35%.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes is subject to uncertainty. The notes'
performance is sensitive to the performance of the underlying
portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and credit conditions
that may 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 notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes in any one or combination
of the key parameters may have rating implications on certain
classes of rated notes. However, in many instances, a change in
key parameter assumptions in certain stress scenarios may be
offset by a change in one or more of the other key parameters.
Rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes in rating factor
assumptions of the underlying collateral. Holding all other key
parameters static, stressing the portfolio WARF to 5158 would
result in no rating movement on the Class A or C notes and a -1
notch in the rating movement on the Class B notes (e.g., minus one
notch implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1). Stressing the
portfolio to 5667 would result in no rating movement on the Class
A or C notes and a -1 notch in the rating movement on the Class B
notes.

Primary sources of assumption uncertainty are the extent of growth
in the current macroeconomic environment given the weak pace of
recovery and commercial real estate property markets. Commercial
real estate property values are continuing to move in a modestly
positive direction 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, a consistent upward trend will not be evident until the
volume of investment activity steadily increases for a significant
period, non-performing properties are cleared from the pipeline,
and fears of a Euro area recession.


SANDELMAN REALTY I: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class E Notes to B1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Sandelman Realty CRE CDO I:

Cl. E, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2013 Upgraded to
Caa3 (sf)

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

Cl. F, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2013 Upgraded to
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the ratings of the senior-most outstanding
class of notes due the future expected recovery from the
resolution of defaulted assets in the transaction; the transaction
currently has one asset remaining. Moody's has affirmed the
ratings on the other notes because the 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 CLO) transactions.

Sandelman Realty CRE CDO I, Ltd. is a currently static cash
transaction whose reinvestment period ended in March 2012. The
transaction is wholly backed by one whole loan (100% of the
current pool balance). As of the June 23, 2014 trustee report, the
aggregate note balance of the transaction, including preferred
shares, has decreased to $100.0 million from $507.0 million at
issuance, with pay-down currently directed to senior most
outstanding class of notes. In addition to the pay-down, the note
balance has also decreased as a result of cancellation of junior
notes. In general, holding all key parameters static, the junior
note cancellations results in slightly higher expected losses and
longer weighted average lives on the senior notes, while producing
slightly lower expected losses on the mezzanine and junior notes.
However, this does not cause, in and of itself, a downgrade or
upgrade of any outstanding classes of notes. The deal is currently
under-collateralized by $57.7million.

The pool contains one asset totaling $42.3 million (100.0% of the
collateral pool balance) that is listed as a defaulted asset as of
the June 23, 2014 trustee report. While there have been realized
losses on the underlying collateral to date, Moody's does expect
moderate losses to occur on the defaulted asset.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of the
expected loss in CRE CLO 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 CLO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 10,000
compared to 8,360 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: Ba1-Ba3 (0.0% compared to 8.9% at last
review); and Caa1-Ca/C (100.0% compared to 91.1% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 3.0 years compared to 3.1 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 45.0%, compared to 34.4% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100.0% 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 March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes 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 notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the
rated notes, 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 notes are particularly sensitive
to changes in the recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments. Increasing the recovery rate of the collateral
pool by 10% would result in an average modeled rating movement on
the rated notes of 0 to 4 notches upward (e.g., one notch up
implies a ratings movement of Ba1 to Baa3). Reducing the recovery
rate of the collateral pool by 10% would result in an average
modeled rating movement on the rated notes of 0 to 2 notches
downward (e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3
to Ba1).

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.


SARANAC CLO III: Moody's Assigns '(P)Ba3' Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced that it has assigned the
following provisional ratings to notes to be issued by Saranac CLO
III Limited:

  $164,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
  2025 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

  $74,000,000 Class A-2A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
  2025 (the "Class A-2A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

  $11,000,000 Class A-2B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
  2025 (the "Class A-2B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

  $31,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2025
  (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

  $31,000,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
  2025 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

  $23,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
  2025 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

  $24,500,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
  2025 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

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 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 (collectively, the "Rated
Notes") address the expected losses posed to the holders of the
Rated Notes. The provisional ratings reflect the risks due to
defaults on the underlying portfolio of loans, the transaction's
legal structure, and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

Saranac III 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 be
invested in senior secured loans and eligible investments and up
to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of senior unsecured loans,
second lien loans and first-lien last-out obligations. The
underlying collateral pool is expected to be approximately 75%
ramped as of the closing date.

Saranac Advisory Limited (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of collateral 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 credit improved
obligations, and are subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue two tranches
of notes, including income 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount of $387,000,000

Diversity of 65

WARF of 2600

Weighted Average Spread of 3.65%

Weighted Average Coupon of 4.5%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate of 45%

Weighted Average Life of 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
February 2014.

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 an 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), holding all other factors equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2600 to 2990)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2A Notes: 0

Class A-2B Notes: 0

Class B Notes: 0

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2600 to 3380)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2A Notes: 0

Class A-2B Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -3

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. Moody's assigned
this V Score in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash-flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009, available on
www.moodys.com.

Moody's V Score provides 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. The V Score applies to the entire
transaction, rather than individual tranches.


SARGAS CLO I: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its rating on the class
B notes from Sargas CLO I Ltd. and affirmed its ratings on the
class C and D notes from the same transaction.  At the same time,
S&P removed its ratings on the class B and C notes from
CreditWatch, where it had placed them with positive implications
on April 9, 2014.  Sargas CLO I Ltd. is a collateralized loan
obligation transaction (CLO) that closed in August 2006.

Since S&P's last rating action in July 2013, the transaction has
paid down more than $68 million cumulatively to the class A-1, A-
2A, A-2B, and B notes.  The three class A tranches have been
completely paid down, and the class B notes currently have $2.42
million outstanding (11.54% of the original balance).

With a total performing collateral balance of $41.36 million
composed of only 14 unique obligors and a large percentage of
'CCC' rated collateral backing the notes, the transaction is
subject to significant concentration risk.  Because of these two
factors, S&P affirmed its rating on the class C notes (rather than
raising the rating by one notch, as the cash flow analysis and
supplemental top obligor test would indicate).

Although the top obligor test technically limits the rating on the
class D notes to the 'CCC' category, the transaction's strong cash
flow results indicating passing runs at the 'BBB+' level, and the
overcollateralization ratio of 116.39% reported in the monthly
trustee report dated June 17, 2014, led S&P to affirm the current
rating.

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.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Sargas CLO I Ltd.
                             Cash flow
        Previous             implied     Cash flow    Final
Class   rating               rating      cushion (i   rating
B       AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    6.21%        AAA (sf)
C       BBB (sf)/Watch Pos   AA+ (sf)    5.23%        BBB (sf)
D       B+ (sf)              BBB+ (sf)   0.23%        B+ (sf)

(i) The cash flow cushion is the excess of the tranche break-even
     default rate above the scenario default rate at the cash flow
     implied rating for a given class of rated notes.

RECOVERY RATE AND CORRELATION SENSITIVITY

In addition to S&P's base-case analysis, it generated additional
scenarios in which it made negative adjustments of 10% to the
current collateral pool's recovery rates relative to each
tranche's weighted average recovery rate.

S&P also generated other scenarios by adjusting the intra- and
inter-industry correlations to assess the current portfolio's
sensitivity to different correlation assumptions assuming the
correlation scenarios outlined.

CORRELATION
Scenario        Within industry (%)   Between industries (%)
Below base case               15.0                       5.0
Base case                     20.0                       7.5
Above base case               25.0                      10.0

                   Recovery   Correlation Correlation
        Cash flow  decrease   increase    decrease
        implied    implied    implied     implied     Final
Class   rating     rating     rating      rating      rating
B       AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C       AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)    BBB (sf)
D       BBB+ (sf)  BB+ (sf)   BBB (sf)    BBB+ (sf)   B+ (sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

To assess whether the current portfolio has sufficient diversity,
S&P biased defaults on the assets in the current collateral pool
with the highest spread and lowest base-case recoveries.

                    Spread        Recovery
       Cash flow    compression   compression
       implied      implied       implied        Final
Class  rating       rating        rating         rating
B      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)
C      AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA (sf)        BBB (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)    BBB (sf)      BB+ (sf)       B+(sf)

RATING/CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

Sargas CLO I Ltd.

                   Rating
Class         To           From
B             AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C             BBB (sf)     BBB (sf)/Watch Pos

RATING AFFIRMED

Sargas CLO I Ltd.
Class         Rating
D             B+ (sf)


SFA ABS III: Fitch Lowers Rating on Class B Notes to 'Dsf'
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded one and affirmed two classes of notes
issued by SFA ABS CDO III Ltd./Inc. (SFA III) as follows:

   -- $16,216,828 class A notes affirmed at 'CCsf';
   -- $50,117,618 class B notes downgraded to 'Dsf' from 'Csf';
   -- $16,315,009 class C notes affirmed at 'Csf'.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The downgrade of the non-deferrable class B notes follows the
interest payment default caused by SFA III's acceleration in May
2014.

The class A notes have benefited from the acceleration of the
capital structure and have continued to amortize since Fitch's
April 2014 review.  Although the credit enhancement (CE) available
to the class has increased, the notes were still unable to
withstand losses projected at the 'CCCsf' rating stress under
Fitch's Structured Finance Portfolio Credit Model (SF PCM)
analysis.

The CE level of the class C notes was exceeded by expected losses
(EL) from the distressed collateral ('CCsf' and below) without
factoring potential losses from the performing portion of the
portfolio.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The notes of SFA III have limited sensitivity to further negative
migration given their highly distressed rating levels. However,
there is potential for the class A notes to be downgraded to 'Dsf'
should they experience any interest payment shortfalls.

This review was conducted under the framework described in the
report 'Global Rating Criteria for Structured Finance CDOs' using
the Structured Finance Portfolio Credit Model (SF PCM) for
projecting future default levels for the underlying portfolio.
The cash flow model framework was not used to analyze the
transaction given the highly distressed rating level of the notes.


SILVER BAY 2014-1: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba2 Rating on Cl. E Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to five
classes of certificates issued by Silver Bay Realty 2014-1 and
backed by one floating rate loan secured by mortgages on 3,089
single-family rental properties.

The complete rating action follows:

$147.7 million of Class A certificates, assigned (P) Aaa (sf)

$37.7 million of Class B certificates, assigned (P) Aa2 (sf)

$33.0 million of Class C certificates, assigned (P) A2 (sf)

$30.4 million of Class D certificates, assigned (P) Baa3 (sf)

$17.1 million of Class E certificates, assigned (P) Ba2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Credit Analysis of Silver Bay Realty 2014-1

Moody's evaluation of the issuer's ultimate ability to repay
interest and principal was based on a recovery analysis (detailed
below) of the portfolio of single-family rental properties backing
this securitization. Moody's recovery analysis approach is not an
opinion that the loan will default, nor a prediction of the
sponsor's intended future plans, but rather represents the rating
agency's analysis of what it considers to be a significantly
stressful resolution.

Moody's also evaluated the portfolio cash flow of Silver Bay
Realty 2014-1 to assess the probability of default during the term
of the loan. However, the limited amount of historical information
currently available on vacancy rates, expenses and cash flow
associated with single-family rental properties in a stress
environment precludes the rating agency from relying significantly
on the transaction's cash flow to meet its long-term obligations.

Moody's concerns about equity foreclosure, as expressed in "Single
Family Rental Securitization Structures Without Mortgages Would
Increase Risk," published on 17 January 2013, were mitigated for
this transaction because both mortgages and pledges of borrower
equity secure the loans backing the transaction. Moody's was
therefore able to assign high investment-grade ratings to the
senior certificates.

Moody's assessment of Silver Bay Property Corp., the property
manager, is that the company has proven its ability to effectively
handle the day-to-day business of managing a national single-
family rental platform. A seasoned senior management team and
effective use of technology are strengths of the property manager.
However, approximately 21% of the properties in this pool are
managed by six third-party managers in five markets. Use of
external managers can result in weaker control and higher
operating costs. Moody's increased Moody's property management
expense assumptions to account for these risks. Although Moody's
did not find Silver Bay to be as strong as some of the operators
in this space, Moody's deem them to be acceptable in their role.
The master servicer and special servicer is Midland Loan Services,
a division of PNC Bank, National Association.

Background

Moody's "Single-Family Rental Securitizations - Institutional
buyers bring different approaches to a new asset class," published
on 6 March 2014, provides a detailed overview of the market for
single-family rental properties.

Methodology

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions,"
published in July 2000.

In rating securities backed by single-family rental properties,
Moody's compares the credit risk inherent in the underlying
properties with the credit protection the transaction structure
offers. On 6 March 2014, Moody's published a "Request for Comment:
Moody's Approach to Rating Single-Family Rental Securitizations."
The request for comment period is now closed. If the new approach
becomes effective as proposed, it will have no ratings impact on
this transaction.

The analysis of Silver Bay Realty 2014-1 is based largely on the
approach Moody's uses to rate large loan commercial mortgage
backed securities (CMBS) backed by multifamily housing, "Moody's
Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions."

Moody's relied on this CMBS rating methodology to analyze the
expenses incurred and cash flows generated by the underlying
properties and to assess the probability of the loan's default
during its term, and it stresses the recovery value of properties
upon refinancing or liquidation, as detailed below.

Moody's deviated from the published methodology when assessing the
collateral value, basing its collateral value analysis on the
lower of the recent BPO (broker price opinion) values, subject to
further haircuts and partial adjustment of the purchase price for
renovations completed by Silver Bay, instead of its usual cash
flow analysis based on cap rates. The analysis took into account,
among other things, a review of the housing markets in key
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), Moody's home price
depreciation assumptions for conventional RMBS, and Moody's
Analytics' "Scenario 4" stress, which models a protracted slump in
the economy. As a result of using these stressed values, Moody's
deviated from its published LTV targets. For example, to calculate
an advance rate (LTV) consistent with a Aaa rating, Moody's
assumed a further 40%-45% price decline on the unsold properties,
depending on the MSA.

The performance of the manager is a key driver of cash flows in a
single-family rental securitization. Although the operation and
management of single-family rental properties may closely resemble
that of multi-family rental properties, the operating costs for
single-family properties may be higher than for multi-family
properties because of their geographic dispersion. Additionally,
because each home has unique features, the renovation,
maintenance, and marketing may be more demanding than in a typical
multi-family setting. Managing on the national level requires
greater economies of scale.

The value of single-family residential properties has not
traditionally been directly related to the income the property can
generate as a rental property. "Value" as interpreted by
traditional buyers and sellers of single-family residential
properties could include many qualitative factors that cannot be
quantified using an income approach. Moody's believes that the
traditional RMBS valuation of the single-family residential
properties, which is based on recent sales of comparable
properties, is more appropriate for this asset class. However,
because of the high concentration of properties in a few markets
and the potential for greater price volatility, Moody's assumes
greater home price depreciation when determining the recovery
values of these properties, compared to the stress it uses to rate
typical RMBS transactions.

Recovery Value Analysis

Moody's bases its principal recovery estimates on a liquidation
scenario in which the trust liquidates a significant portion of
the properties under stress conditions, such as falling home
prices and long foreclosure timelines, which increase the costs of
maintaining the properties. Moody's recovery estimates also
account for rental income on the assumption that the trust will
continue to rent out some of the homes following a default until
the properties are foreclosed on and vacated prior to REO sale.
The collateral's final recovery value is equal to Moody's estimate
of the properties' initial value (the Moody's Value), minus the
value lost following home price stress, adjusted for a portion of
the rental revenue net of the full rental expenses and all
expenses incurred by vacant properties. Additionally, Moody's
adjusts the final recovery amount by the legal, servicing and
other carrying costs associated with a portfolio liquidation.
Moody's bases its assumptions on the amount of historical data it
has accumulated from its assessments of single-family residential
values and of current market conditions.

Moody's determines a stressed recovery value in a default scenario
by:

-- assigning an initial Moody's Value to the collateral

-- assuming that a limited percentage of properties will be sold
    at full market value and the trust will receive only the
    applicable release premium

-- stressing the recovery values of the remaining properties
    that were not released

Moody's then calculates revenue and expense adjustments on the
stressed recovery value by:

-- assuming that a portion of the properties are vacant at
    default and estimating the rental income and associated costs
    on that portion of properties during the stressed liquidation
    timelines

-- estimating the total cost required to maintain all the
    remaining properties until liquidation

-- estimating foreclosure costs such as fixed legal costs,
    servicing fees, special servicing liquidation fees and
    transfer taxes

-- estimating potential master servicer advances plus the
    interest on the servicer advances

Net Cash Flow Adjustment and DSCR

Moody's evaluates the net cash flow from the properties to assess
the loan's probability of default during the term. It makes
property-specific adjustments to the underwriter's net cash flow
projections. To derive the net cash flow available to service the
debt, Moody's considers current rental market conditions, recent
portfolio performance, operating expense ratios, and industry
outlooks and forecasts by industry participants. Moody's also
considers market-level adjustments to concessions, sales and
marketing, commissions, management fees, and capital items such as
ongoing maintenance expenses and replacement reserves to the
extent these items are not already fully reflected in the
underwritten cash flow. Moody's derives its adjustment to property
level cash flow for single-family rental properties from its
experience in assessing stabilized net cash flow for multifamily
properties.

Highlights of the Credit Analysis of Silver Bay 2014-1

The transaction's Aaa advance rate (the ratio of the par balance
of the senior certificate to the Moody's Value) is 41.3%. Moody's
uses the advance rate to determine whether the asset's value is
sufficient to support a targeted rating level given the amount of
the transaction's liabilities.

Moody's calculates the final recovery value, which varies by
rating levels, by following these steps.

1) Moody's determined an initial Moody's Value for this portfolio
of $358 million, after considering (a) the sponsor's acquisition
cost, adjusted for 50% of Moody's estimate of home price
appreciation (excluding lower-value properties) since acquisition,
plus 45% of rehabilitation cost, and (b) 85% of the most recent
broker price opinion. The cumulative broker price opinion on the
properties is about $481 million.

2) Moody's assumed that a certain percentage of these properties
would be sold out of the transaction at full market value prior to
the borrower's default, netting proceeds equal to the allocated
loan amounts plus a pre-determined premium on those properties.

3) Moody's then stressed the recovery values of the remaining
properties the sponsor did not release by applying a home price
depreciation factor to the properties' Moody's Value, ranging from
40% to 45%, depending on the MSA.

4) In its Aaa stress scenarios, Moody's assumed that the total
cost required to maintain all the properties remaining in the pool
after default, including real estate taxes, property management
fees, vacancy, Home Owner's Association fees, insurance, repairs,
and sales and marketing, would stretch out over 38 months, while a
portion of the properties would generate income for 28 months.
Moody's stress for the foreclosure timeline for this transaction
is lower than for a typical RMBS transaction because the rating
agency expects the foreclosure process to be quicker, given that
the trust does not have to foreclose on individual borrowers;
instead, it can foreclose either on the lien on the mortgage or on
the equity of the SPV borrower.

5) Moody's estimated additional foreclosure costs which include
fixed legal costs, a special servicer fee of 0.25% and a master
servicing fee of 0.135% of the loan amount; special servicing
liquidation fees of 0.75% of the property value; and transfer
taxes of 0.70% for any property in Florida.

6) Finally, Moody's assumed that the master servicer would
continue to advance interest (to the extent deemed recoverable) on
the certificates until the properties were liquidated, and
estimated the interest that would accrue on the servicer advances.

Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's weighted average adjustment to the pool's underwritten net
cash flow was -17.4%. The Moody's debt service coverage ratio is
2.18x (based on initially indicated pricing).

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

A larger decline in home prices and higher rental vacancy rates
and expenses than Moody's initially assumed could have an adverse
impact on the ratings. The ratings could also be negatively
affected if the ability of the property manager to effectively
manage the day-to-day operations of the business is compromised.

Sensitivity Analysis

If, in determining the initial rating, Moody's decreased the
Moody's recovery on the collateral by 5%, the model-indicated
ratings would be the following:

for the Class A's current rating of (P)Aaa (sf), Aa1

for the Class B's current rating of (P)Aa2 (sf), A1

for the Class C's current rating of (P)A2 (sf), Baa1

for the Class D's current rating of (P)Baa3 (sf), Ba1

for the Class E's current rating of (P)Ba2 (sf), B1

Parameter Sensitivities are not intended to measure how the rating
of the security might migrate over time, rather they are designed
to provide a quantitative calculation of how the initial rating
might change if key input parameters used in the initial rating
process differed. The analysis assumes that the deal has not aged.
Parameter Sensitivities only reflect the ratings impact of each
scenario from a quantitative/model-indicated standpoint.
Qualitative factors are also taken into consideration in the
ratings process, so the actual ratings that would be assigned in
each case could vary from the information presented in the
Parameter Sensitivity analysis.


SILVER SPRING: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
eight classes of notes to be issued by Silver Spring CLO Ltd.:

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$258,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$36,900,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$6,100,000 Class C-1 Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$15,000,000 Class C-2 Senior Secured Deferrable Fixed Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class C-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$22,700,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$20,700,000 Class E Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$4,100,000 Class F Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class F Notes"), Assigned (P)B2 (sf)

The Class A Notes, the Class B-1 Notes, the Class B-2 Notes, the
Class C-1 Notes, the Class C-2 Notes, the Class D Notes, the Class
E Notes and the Class F 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.

Silver Spring 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. We expect the portfolio to be approximately
70% ramped as of the closing date.

Silvermine Capital 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 equity
securities, credit risk assets and credit improved 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2500

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.45%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.5%

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
February 2014.

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 2500 to 2875)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -1

Class B-2 Notes: -1

Class C-1 Notes: -2

Class C-2 Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2500 to 3250)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-2 Notes: -3

Class C-1 Notes: -3

Class C-2 Notes: -3

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -3

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

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.


SOLARCITY LMC III: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class B Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to
SolarCity LMC Series III LLC's $201.5 million solar asset-backed
series 2014-2 notes.

SolarCity LMC Series III LLC's issuance is an asset-backed
securities transaction backed by all rights, title, and interest
of the issuer in and to a portfolio of solar photovoltaic (PV)
systems.

The ratings reflect:

  -- The credit enhancement available in the form of
     overcollateralization and subordination (for the class A
     notes);

   -- The manager's operational and management abilities;

   -- The customer base's initial credit quality underlying the
      portfolio that is subject to the master lease;

   -- The projected cash flows supporting the notes; and

   -- The transaction's structure.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

SolarCity LMC Series III LLC Series 2014-2

Class       Rating          Amount
                          (mil. $)
A           BBB+ (sf)        160.0
B           BB (sf)           41.5


STEELE CREEK 2014-1: Moody's Rates 2 Note Classes '(P)Ba3'
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
seven classes of notes to be issued by Steele Creek CLO 2014-1,
Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$213,800,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$40,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$46,200,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

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

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

$7,000,000 Class E-1 Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class E-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$12,500,000 Class E-2 Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class E-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

The Class A-1 Notes, the Class A-2 Notes, the Class B Notes, the
Class C Notes, the Class D Notes, the Class E-1 Notes and the
Class E-2 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.

Steele Creek CLO is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien
senior secured corporate loans. At least 95.0% of the portfolio
must consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible
investments, and up to 5.0% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans. The portfolio is expected to be at
least 75% ramped as of the closing date.

Steele Creek Investment 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2750

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.80%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

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
February 2014.
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 2750 to 3163)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -1

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E-1 Notes: 0

Class E-2 Notes: 0

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

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E-1 Notes: -1

Class E-2 Notes: -1

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

The score for the "Experience of, Arrangements Among and Oversight
of the Transaction Parties," a sub-category of the V Score, is one
notch higher than that of the benchmark CLO, which is Low/Medium.
The score of Medium reflects the fact that this transaction will
be the Manager's first CLO. This higher score for "Experience of,
Arrangements Among and Oversight of the Transaction Parties" does
not, however, cause this transaction's overall composite V Score
of Medium/High to differ from that of the CLO sector benchmark.

Moody's V Score provides 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. The V Score applies to the entire
transaction, rather than individual tranches.


STF FIRST MORTGAGE: Moody's Lowers Rating on 2007-A Notes to Caa2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the notes issued by STF
First Mortgage Bond Trust 2007-A. The notes are secured by a pool
of mortgage assets including mortgage bonds and participation
certificates secured primarily by church-related real property
such as church buildings and church affiliated schools. The
transaction was originally sponsored by Strongtower Financial,
Inc. The pool is serviced by Reliance Trust Company. The trustee
and remittance report provider is Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Company N.A.

Issuer: STF First Mortgage Bond Trust 2007-A

Mortgage Backed Notes, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul
22, 2011 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Rating Rationale

The downgrade was prompted by the performance of the underlying
collateral and the increasing accrued interest shortfall to the
notes. As of the July 2014 semi-annual reporting date,
approximately $6.5 million, representing 48.3% of the outstanding
collateral pool, is 60 or more days delinquent. In addition, $6.2
million of collateral was charged off after more than 3 years of
delinquency and is now in various stages of liquidation.

The reserve account for the transaction has been exhausted. The
notes' interest shortfall stands at $1.0 million, and the notes'
principal balance is $2.7 million undercollateralized as of July
2014 report. Future recoveries from charged-off loans will be used
first to repay interest shortfalls and then to amortize principal.
Amount and timing of recoveries are subject to a high uncertainty.
Additionally, the substantial obligor concentrations at closing
have increased further due to defaults and prepayments.
Specifically, there are now 16 obligors in the pool, down from 29
at deal closing.

Principal Methodology

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating SME Balance Sheet Securitizations" published in
January 2014.

Moody's approach used for the rating action included a default
analysis of the underlying collateral. The underlying loans and
securities in default were considered on an individual obligor and
property basis. Moody's applied various recovery assumptions to
the defaulted and charged-off collateral, including scenarios
based on flat recovery rates of 30% to 50%, and a scenario that
considers individual loan-level recoveries from 20% to 100%,
reflecting each property's unique status as described by the
trustee. Moody's also considered recoveries based on property
appraised values adjusted for the date of the appraisal in
accordance with changes in the non-major market CPPI index. The
range of tranche losses associated with Moody's analysis of the
underlying loans, including future recoveries from charged-off
loans, is 17% to 40% of the outstanding balance. The tranche loss
estimates also take into account that as of the July 2014
reporting date, the transaction is undercollateralized, note
holders are experiencing interest shortfalls and the reserve
account has been depleted.

Primary sources of assumption uncertainty are the general economic
environment, property values and the ability of the underlying
church borrowers to recover from the recession.

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

Up

Losses below Moody's expectations as a result of a decrease in
seriously delinquent loans or lower severities than expected on
liquidated loans.

Down

Losses above Moody's expectations as a result of an increase in
seriously delinquent loans or higher severities than expected on
liquidated loans.


STONE TOWER V: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes to 'B+'
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-2a I, A-2a NV, A-2a V, A-2b, A-3, B, C-1, C-2, and D notes
from Stone Tower CLO V Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan obligation
transaction managed by Apollo ST Debt Advisors LLC.  At the same
time, S&P removed the ratings from CreditWatch, where it had
placed them with positive implications on April 9, 2014.

The upgrades reflect post-reinvestment period principal
amortization paydowns to the class A-1, A-2a I, A-2a NV, and A-2a
V notes.  Since Dec. 2011, when S&P raised its ratings on seven
classes, the class A-1 notes paid down a total of $23.0 million to
61.7% of their original balance, and the class A-2a I, A-2a NV,
and A-2a V notes paid down a total of $207.5 million to 57.4% of
their original balances, increasing credit support for the
subordinate notes.

As of July 2014, there were $5.0 million (0.9%) of assets from
obligors in the 'CCC' rating category, down from $21.5 million
(2.8%) in December 2011.  In addition, defaulted assets decreased
to $3.2 million (0.6%) from $9.7 million (1.3%) as of Dec. 2011.
Immediately following the July 16 payment date, the transaction's
class D overcollateralization ratio was approximately 106.4%.

"Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in the
aforementioned trustee report, to estimate future performance.  In
line with our criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied forward-
looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of
defaults, as well as on recoveries upon default, under various
interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, our
analysis considered the transaction's ability to pay timely
interest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches.
The results of the cash flow analysis demonstrated, in our view,
that all of the rated outstanding classes have adequate credit
enhancement available at the rating levels associated with this
rating action," S&P said.

S&P will continue to review its ratings on the notes and assess
whether they remain consistent with the credit enhancement
available to support them, and S&P will take rating actions as it
deems necessary.

RECOVERY RATE AND CORRELATION SENSITIVITY

In addition to S&P's base-case analysis, it generated additional
scenarios in which it made negative adjustments of 10% to the
current collateral pool's recovery rates relative to each
tranche's weighted average recovery rate.  S&P also generated
other scenarios by adjusting the intra- and inter-industry
correlations to assess the current portfolio's sensitivity to
different correlation assumptions assuming the correlation
scenarios outlined.

Correlation
scenario          Within industry (%)   Between industries (%)
Below base case   15.0                  5.0
Base case         20.0                  7.5
Above base case   25.0                  10.0

                       Recovery   Correlation   Correlation
          Cash flow   decrease   increase      decrease
          implied     implied    implied       implied    Final
Class     rating      rating     rating        rating     rating
A-1       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2a I    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2a NV   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2a V    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2b      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-3       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)
B         AA- (sf)    A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)       AA+ (sf)   AA- (sf)
C-1      BBB+ (sf)   BBB (sf)   BBB+ (sf)     A- (sf)    BBB+ (sf)
C-2      BBB+ (sf)   BBB (sf)   BBB+ (sf)     A- (sf)    BBB+ (sf)
D        B+ (sf)     B+ (sf)    B+ (sf)       B+ (sf)    B+ (sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

To assess whether the current portfolio has sufficient diversity,
S&P biased defaults on the assets in the current collateral pool
with the highest spread and lowest base-case recoveries.

                       Spread         Recovery
          Cash flow    compression    compression
          implied      implied        implied     Final
Class     rating       rating         rating      rating
A-1       AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2a I    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2a NV   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2a V    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2b      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-3       AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
B         AA- (sf)     AA- (sf)       A (sf)      AA- (sf)
C-1       BBB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)      BB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)
C-2       BBB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)      BB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)
D         B+ (sf)      B+ (sf)        B- (sf)     B+ (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Stone Tower CLO V Ltd.

                       Rating
Class     Identifier   To          From
A-1       861754AA7    AAA (sf)    AA (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2a I    861754AB5    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2b      861754AE9    AAA (sf)    AA (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3       861754AF6    AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
B         861754AG4    AA- (sf)    A- (sf)/Watch Pos
C-1       861754AH2    BBB+ (sf)   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C-2       861754AJ8    BBB+ (sf)   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D         861754AK5    B+ (sf)     CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2a NV   861754AD1    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2a V    861754AC3    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos


TICP CLO II: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating on $4.8MM Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
eight classes of notes to be issued by TICP CLO II, Ltd.
Moody's rating action is as follows:

$255,000,000 Class A-1A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$65,300,000 Class A-1B Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-1B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$43,000,000 Class A-2A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-2A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$18,100,000 Class A-2B Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-2B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$25,400,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$26,400,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$28,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$4,800,000 Class E Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

The Class A-1A Notes, the Class A-1B 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 rating of the Rated Notes addresses the
expected loss posed to noteholders. The provisional rating
reflects the risks due to defaults on the underlying portfolio of
assets, the transaction's legal structure, and the characteristics
of the underlying assets.

TICP CLO II 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 underlying collateral pool is expected to
be approximately 80% ramped as of the closing date.

TICP CLO II 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 any
proceeds from sales of credit risk and credit improved assets,
subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue one tranche
of 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2600

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.45%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

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
February 2014.

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 rating 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 2600 to 2990)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A Notes: 0

Class A-1B Notes: 0

Class A-2A Notes: -2

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 2600 to 3380)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A Notes: -1

Class A-1B Notes: -1

Class A-2A Notes: -4

Class A-2B Notes: -4

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -2

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

The score for the "Experience of, Arrangements Among and Oversight
of the Transaction Parties," a sub-category of the V Score, is one
notch higher than that of the benchmark CLO, which is Low/Medium.
The score of Medium reflects the fact that this transaction will
be the Manager's second CLO. This higher score for "Experience of,
Arrangements Among and Oversight of the Transaction Parties" does
not, however, cause this transaction's overall composite V Score
of Medium/High to differ from that of the CLO sector benchmark.

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.


TRINITAS CLO II: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to
Trinitas CLO II Ltd./Trinitas CLO II LLC's $381.625 million
floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly
syndicated senior secured loans.

The ratings reflect:

   -- 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 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 consists
      primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The asset manager's and designated successor manager's
      experienced management teams.

   -- The transaction's ability to make 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
      0.2600%-13.8391%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization (O/C) 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 a certain amount
      of excess interest proceeds available before paying deferred
      interest on the class F notes; uncapped administrative
      expenses and fees; subordinated hedge termination payments;
      subordinated management fees; asset manager incentive fees;
      and subordinated note payments; during the reinvestment
      period, at the collateral manager's discretion, as principal
      proceeds to purchase additional collateral assets or to pay
      principal on the notes according to the principal payment
      sequence.

RATINGS LIST

Trinitas CLO II Ltd./Trinitas CLO II LLC

Class                  Rating                  Amount (mil. $)
X                      AAA (sf)                 3.625
A-1                    AAA (sf)                 165.750
A-2                    AAA (sf)                 83.000
B-1                    AA (sf)                  42.750
B-2                    AA (sf)                  21.000
C                      A (sf)                   22.000
D                      BBB (sf)                 20.250
E                      BB (sf)                  17.500
F                      B (sf)                   5.750
Combination notes(i)   AA (sf)                  208.229
Subordinated notes        NR                    34.500

  (i) Combination notes consist of an aggregate amount of up to
      $208,228,643 with the components comprising up to
      $165,750,000 of the class A-1 notes and $42,478,643 of the
      class B-1 notes.  At closing, the issuer expects to have
      $191,050,000 in total combination notes outstanding,
      comprising $152,075,800 of the class A-1 notes and
      $38,974,200 of the class B-1 notes.  The individual
      components of the combination notes are included in the
      outstanding amount of the related components and will earn
      interest in the same manner as the related components.  The
      component amounts outstanding can vary, subject to
      conditions as described in the indenture.
  NR-Not rated.


TROPIC CDO IV: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. A-3L Notes to Caa1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by Tropic CDO IV Ltd.:

  $37,500,000 Class A-3L Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due April
  2035 (current balance of $40,347,123 including deferred
  interest balance), Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on May 6,
  2014 Upgraded to Ca (sf).

Moody's also confirmed the rating on the following notes:

  $40,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes due April 2035,
  Confirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Baa2 (sf)
  Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade.

Tropic CDO IV Ltd., issued in November 2004, is a collateralized
debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank trust preferred
securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDOs methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to
Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect an
increase in the transaction's over-collateralization ratios after
treating $28 million of deferring securities that meet certain
criteria as performing since May 2014.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology, including (1) removing the 25% macro default
probability stress for bank TruPS; (2) expanding the default
timing profiles from one to six probability-weighted scenarios;
(3) incorporating a redemption profile for bank TruPS; (4) using a
loss distribution generated by Moody's CDOROM(TM) for deals that
do not permit reinvestment; and (5) giving full par credit to
deferring bank TruPS that meet certain criteria.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its rating on the issuer's Class A-2L
Notes announced on June 26, 2014. At that time, Moody's had placed
the rating on review for upgrade as a result of the aforementioned
methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool having a performing par (after treating
deferring securities as performing if they meet certain criteria)
of $197 million, defaulted/deferring par of $85 million, a
weighted average default probability of 10.28% (implying a WARF of
935), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10%. In
addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models,
qualitative factors are part of rating committee considerations.
Moody's considers the structural protections in the transaction,
the risk of an event of default, recent deal performance under
current market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains TruPS issued by small to medium
sized U.S. community banks that Moody's does not rate publicly. To
evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that do not have public
ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an econometric model developed
by Moody's KMV, to derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the
credit risk of most of the bank obligors in the pool relies on
FDIC Q1-2014 financial data.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 555)

Class A-1L: +2

Class A-2L: +3

Class A-3L: +3

Class A-4L: 0

Class A-4: 0

Class B-1L: 0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1428)

Class A-1L: -2

Class A-2L: -1

Class A-3L: -3

Class A-4L: 0

Class A-4: 0

Class B-1L: 0


UNITED AUTO 2014-1: DBRS Finalizes BB Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Inc. has finalized its provisional ratings of the following
classes issued by United Auto Credit Securitization Trust 2014-1:

-- Series 2014-1 Notes, Class A-1 at R-1 (high) (sf)
-- Series 2014-1 Notes, Class A-2 at AAA (sf)
-- Series 2014-1 Notes, Class B at AA (sf)
-- Series 2014-1 Notes, Class C at A (sf)
-- Series 2014-1 Notes, Class D at BBB (sf)
-- Series 2014-1 Notes, Class E at BB (sf)


UNITED AUTO 2014-1: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to United
Auto Credit Securitization Trust 2014-1's $175.66 million notes
Series 2014-1.

The note issuance is an ABS securitization backed by subprime auto
loan receivables.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The availability of approximately 54.8%, 47.0%, 38.6%,
      32.7%, and 24.9% credit support for the class A, B, C, D,
      and E notes, respectively, based on stressed break-even cash
      flow scenarios (including excess spread).

   -- These credit support levels provide coverage of more than
      3.20x, 2.70x, 2.15x, 1.65x, and 1.35x its expected net loss
      range of 16.75%-17.25% for the class A, B, C, D, and E
      notes, respectively.

   -- The likelihood of timely interest and principal payments by
      the assumed legal final maturity dates under stressed cash-
      flow modeling scenarios that are appropriate for the
      assigned ratings.

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, the ratings on the class A, B, C, and D notes
      would not decline by more than one rating category.  Under
      this scenario, the 'BB (sf)' rated class E notes would not
      decline by more than one rating category in the first year
      but would ultimately not pay off in a 'BBB' stress scenario,
      as expected.  These potential rating movements are
      consistent with S&P's credit stability criteria, which
      outlines the outer bound of credit deterioration as a one-
      category downgrade within the first year for 'AAA' and 'AA'
      rated securities and a two-category downgrade within the
      first year for 'A' through 'BB' rated securities under
      moderate stress conditions.

   -- The credit enhancement in the form of subordination,
      overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess spread
      as well as a performance trigger to build
      overcollateralization if net losses exceed designated
      levels.

   -- The collateral characteristics of the subprime pool being
      securitized: It is approximately five months seasoned, with
      a weighted average remaining term of about 35 months.
      Approximately 8.5% of the loans have an original term of 49
      to 60 months, and as a result, we expect the pool will pay
      down more quickly than many other subprime pools with longer
      loan terms.

   -- S&P's analysis of five years of static pool data following
      the credit crisis and after United Auto Credit Corp. (UACC)
      centralized its operations and shifted toward shorter loan
      terms.  S&P also reviewed the performance of UACC's two
      outstanding securitizations as well as its seven
      securitizations from 2004 to 2007.

   -- UACC's 18-plus-year history of originating, underwriting,
      and servicing subprime auto loans.

   -- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

United Auto Credit Securitization Trust 2014-1

                                   Interest          Interest
Class   Rating       Type          rate       amount (Mil. $)
A-1     A-1+ (sf)    Senior        Fixed               52.300
A-2     AAA (sf)     Senior        Fixed               40.700
B       AA (sf)      Subordinate   Fixed               25.000
C       A (sf)       Subordinate   Fixed               24.000
D       BBB (sf)     Subordinate   Fixed               14.660
E       BB           Subordinate   Fixed               19.000


US CAPITAL FUNDING: Moody's Confirms B2 Rating on Series A Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced that it has upgraded the
ratings of the following notes issued by US Capital Funding III,
Ltd:

  $111,000,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Senior Notes Due 2035
  (current balance of $42,062,833.28), Upgraded to Aa3 (sf);
  previously on Jun 26, 2014 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review for
  Possible Upgrade

  $23,000,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Senior Notes Due 2035,
  Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on May 8, 2014 Upgraded to Baa2
  (sf)

US Capital Funding III, Ltd., issued on November 22, 2004, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank trust
preferred securities (TruPS).

Moody's also confirmed the rating of notes issued by USCF III 2.5%
Combination Security Trust:

  $7,500,000 Series A Trust Units (current rated balance of
  $5,763,302), Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Jun 26, 2014
  B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

USCF III 2.5% Combination Security Trust, issued on November 22,
2004, is a combination note comprised of $2 million of the Class
B-1 notes, $2 million of the Class B-2 notes and $2.62 million of
the Income Notes issued by US Capital Funding III, Ltd. as well as
a Fannie Mae Strip with a face value of $3.5 million maturing Nov
15, 2029.

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDOs methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to
Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect a
slight increase in the transaction's over-collateralization
ratios, because of the resumption of interest payments by an asset
that had previously been deferring interest.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDOs methodology, including (1) removing the 25% macro default
probability stress for bank and insurance TruPS; (2) expanding the
default timing profiles from one to six probability-weighted
scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption profile for bank and
insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss distribution generated by
Moody's CDOROM(TM) for deals that do not permit reinvestment; and
(5) giving full par credit to deferring bank TruPS that meet
certain criteria.

In addition, one asset that had previously been deferring
interest, with a balance of $2.15 million, has cured its interest
deferral and resumed interest payments on May 27,2014. As a result
of this resumption of interest payment and treatment of the asset
as performing, the Class A1 notes' par coverage improved by 24.72%
to 332.00% as calculated by Moody's. Based on the latest trustee
report dated June 3, 2014, the Senior Principal Coverage Test was
205.82% (limit 130.0%), versus 191.9% as of March 3, 2014 and the
Senior Subordinate Coverage test was 88.321% (103.98%), versus
83.28% as of March 3, 2014.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the Class A-1 Notes
issued by US Capital Funding III, Ltd. and the Series A Trust
Units issued by the USCF III 2.5% Combination Security Trust
announced on June 26, 2014. At that time, Moody's had placed the
rating on review for upgrade as a result of the aforementioned
methodology updates

Moody's notes that the key model inputs used by Moody's in its
analysis, such as par, weighted average rating factor, and
weighted average recovery rate, are based on its published
methodology and may be different from the trustee's reported
numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the underlying
collateral pool to have a performing par balance (after treating
deferring securities as performing if they meet certain criteria)
of $139.65 million, defaulted/deferring par of $35 million, a
weighted average default probability of 6.98% (implying a WARF of
618), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10%. In
addition to the quantitative factors that are explicitly modeled,
qualitative factors are part of rating committee considerations.
Moody's considers the structural protections in the transaction,
the risk of triggering an Event of Default, recent deal
performance under current market conditions, the legal
environment, and specific documentation features. All information
available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts,
inputs from other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and
judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on
the transactions, may influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 2014.

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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Moody's evaluates the sensitivity of the ratings
of the notes to the volatility of these credit assessments.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs. The
simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution.

The portfolio of this CDO contains trust preferred securities
issued by small to medium sized U.S. community banks that Moody's
does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank
TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM),
an econometric model developed by Moody's Analytics, to derive
credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of
the bank obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014 financial
data.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 412):

Class A-1:+1

Class A-2: +1

Class B-1: 0

Class B-2: 0

Combination Security Trust: 0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 907):

Class A-1: -1

Class A-2: -1

Class B-1: 0

Class B-2: 0

Combination Security Trust: 0


VENTURE IX CDO: Moody's Raises Rating on Class E Notes to Ba3
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Venture IX CDO, Limited:

$370,000,000 Class A Senior Notes Due October 10, 2021, Upgraded
to Aaa (sf); previously on September 12, 2011 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

$35,000,000 Class B Senior Notes Due October 10, 2021, Upgraded
to Aa3 (sf); previously on September 12, 2011 Upgraded to A2 (sf)

$25,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Notes Due October 10,
2021, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on September 12, 2011
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

$14,000,000 Class E Deferrable Junior Notes Due October 10, 2021,
Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on September 12, 2011 Upgraded to
B1 (sf)

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

$16,000,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Notes Due October 10,
2021, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on September 12, 2011 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Venture IX CDO, Limited, issued in September 2007, is a
collateralized loan obligation CLO backed primarily by a portfolio
of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period
will end in October 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
October 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 higher spread and
diversity levels compared to the covenant levels. Moody's modeled
a spread of 4.04% and diversity of 97 compared to the covenant
levels of 1.95% and 90, respectively. Furthermore, the
transaction's reported OC ratios have been stable.

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
February 2014.

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) 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) 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.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings of the 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% (2325)

Class A: 0

Class B: +2

Class C: +2

Class D: +2

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3487)

Class A: -1

Class B: -2

Class C: -2

Class D: 0

Class E: -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 February 2014.

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 $482.2 million, defaulted
par of $14.9 million, a weighted average default probability of
21.40% (implying a WARF of 2906), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 48.77%, a diversity score of 97 and a weighted
average spread of 4.04%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for CLO securities as published in "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs." In some cases, alternative recovery
assumptions may be considered based on the specifics of the
analysis of the CLO transaction. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


VOYA CLO 2014-3: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $8.75MM Cl. E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to eight classes of
notes issued by Voya CLO 2014-3, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$320,000,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$53,750,000 Class A-2A Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-2A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$12,500,000 Class A-2B Fixed Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class A-2B
Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$23,750,000 Class B Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

$31,250,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

$23,000,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

$8,750,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

$71,250,000 Combination Securities (composed of components
representing U.S.$12,500,000 Class A-2A Notes, U.S.$12,500,000
Class A-2B Notes, U.S.$23,750,000 Class B Notes and
U.S.$22,500,000 subordinated notes) due 2026 (the "Combination
Securities"), Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (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, the Class
E Notes and Combination Securities are referred to herein,
collectively, as the "Rated Notes."

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected losses
posed to noteholders. The 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.

Moody's rating of the Combination Securities addresses only the
ultimate payment of principal to the holders of the Combination
Securities. For the avoidance of doubt, Moody's rating of the
Combination Securities does not address any other payments or
additional amounts that a holder of the Combination Securities may
receive pursuant to the underlying documents.

Voya 2014-3 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up
to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans. The
Issuer's documents require the portfolio to be at least 78% ramped
as of the closing date.

Voya 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, 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 has issued 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2820

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.75%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

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
February 2014.

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 2820 to 3243)

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: 0

Class E Notes: 0

Combination Securities: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2820 to 3666)

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: -3

Combination Securities: -2

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

Moody's V Score provides 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. The V Score applies to the entire
transaction, rather than individual tranches.


WACHOVIA BANK 2004-C15: Moody's Cuts Rating on Cl. J Certs to C
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on ten classes
and downgraded the ratings on two classes of Wachovia Bank
Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2004-C15 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, 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. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

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

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded to
Baa2 (sf)

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

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

Cl. H, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. J, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

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

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

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on Classes A-1A through G 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 Class K was affirmed because the rating is
consistent with Moody's expected loss. The rating on the IO class
was affirmed based on the credit performance (or the weighted
average rating factor or WARF) of the referenced classes.

The ratings on Classes H and J 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 9.3% of the
current balance compared to 6.0% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.9% 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 14 compared to 19 Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 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 July 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 67% to $387 million
from $1.2 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 47 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 7% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 49% of
the pool. Nine loans, constituting 19% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

Twenty loans, constituting 53% 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.

Five loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $32 million (for an average loss
severity of 77%). Two loans, constituting 7% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the 10 Independence Boulevard Loan ($17.0 million -- 4.4%
of the pool), which is secured by a 121,000 square foot (SF)
office building located in Warren, New Jersey. The loan
transferred to special servicing in October 2013 due to imminent
default. The property was 93% leased as of April 2014.

The other specially serviced loan is the 10 East Baltimore Street
Loan ($10.9 million -- 2.8% of the pool), which is secured by a
168,000 SF office building located in the central business
district of Baltimore, Maryland. The loan transferred to special
servicing in March 2013, and became REO in May 2014. The property
was 63% leased as of April 2014. The servicer's strategy is to
lease up and stabilize the property. The servicer has recognized a
$3.9 million appraisal reduction for this loan.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $12.3 million loss for the
specially serviced loans (44% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for three poorly
performing loans, constituting 24% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $13.6 million (15% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2014 operating results for 84% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 91%, compared to 90% 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 9.1%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.22X and 1.12X,
respectively, compared to 1.30X and 1.12X 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 25% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the New Jersey Portfolio Loan ($65 million --
16.8% of the pool), which is secured by four suburban office
properties totaling 576,000 SF located in northern New Jersey. The
portfolio was 83% leased as of April 2014, the same as at last
review. The loan has been on the master servicer's watchlist since
September 2010 due primarily to the underperformance of one of the
properties. Additionally, leases making up 23% of the net rentable
area (NRA) roll by year-end 2015. The loan is scheduled to mature
next month and the borrower has not indicated it will pay off at
maturity. Moody's has identified the loan as a troubled loan.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 134% and 0.77X, respectively,
compared to 118% and 0.87X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Mahopac Village Center Loan ($15.9
million -- 4.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 149,000 SF
grocery anchored retail center located in Mahopac, New York. The
property is anchored by an A&P grocery store, which leases 42% of
the NRA through January 2049. The property was 88% leased as of
March 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 98% and 0.99X,
respectively, compared to 97% and 1.0X at the last review.

The third largest exposure is the cross-collateralized Shops at
Lufkin Loan ($12.0 million -- 3.1% of the pool) and the Rite Aid -
- Augusta Loan ($2.7 million -- 0.7% of the pool). The Shops at
Lufkin Loan is secured by a 110,000 SF anchored retail center
located in Lufkin, Texas. The center is located adjacent to the
Lufkin Mall. The major anchor tenants include Best Buy (18% of the
NRA; lease expiration January 2015), Bed Bath & Beyond (16% of the
NRA; lease expiration January 2021), and Ross (27% of the NRA;
lease expiration January 2015). The property was 98% leased as of
June 2014. The Rite Aid Loan is secured by a 13,800 SF Rite Aid
store located in Augusta, Georgia. The property is 100% leased
triple-net to Rite-Aid Corporation (Senior Unsecured; Caa1)
through June 2024. Moody's combined LTV and stressed DSCR are 103%
and 0.97X, respectively, compared to 104% and 0.93X at the last
review.


WATERFRONT CLO 2007-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-2, A-3, and B notes from Waterfront CLO 2007-1 Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation transaction managed by Grandview
Capital Management LLC.  At the same time, S&P removed these
ratings from CreditWatch, where it had placed them with positive
implications on April 9, 2014.  S&P also affirmed its ratings on
the class C and D notes from the same transaction.

The upgrades reflect post-reinvestment period principal
amortization paydowns to the class A-1 notes.  Since March 2013,
when S&P raised its ratings on two classes, the class A-1 notes
paid down a total of $76.0 million to 60.1% of their original
balance, increasing credit support for the subordinate notes.

As of June 2014, there were $1.4 million (0.7%) of assets from
obligors in the'CCC' rating category, down from $9.3 million
(3.4%) in March 2013.  In addition, defaulted assets have
increased to $2.4 million (1.1%) from none in March 2013.
Immediately following the July 15 payment date, the transaction's
class D overcollateralization ratio was approximately 107.9%.

Although the credit support to the senior tranches has improved,
the July 2014 monthly trustee report indicates that $12.1 million
of the underlying collateral is scheduled to mature after the
notes' stated maturity.  This represents 5.65% of the underlying
collateral immediately following the July 15 payment date.  S&P's
analysis included a sensitivity test that evaluated the affect of
the market-value risk on this exposure to long-dated securities.
Although S&P's cash flow analysis indicated that it could raise
the rating on the class B notes to 'A+ (sf)', S&P only raised the
rating to 'A- (sf)' based on the results of this sensitivity test.

S&P's rating affirmations on the class C and D notes reflect the
availability of adequate credit support at their current rating
levels.

As mentioned, S&P's review of this transaction included a cash
flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected
in the aforementioned trustee report, to estimate future
performance.  In line with S&P's criteria, its cash flow scenarios
applied forward-looking assumptions on the expected timing and
pattern of defaults, as well as on recoveries upon default, under
various interest rate, and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition,
S&P's analysis considered the transaction's ability to pay timely
interest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches.
The results of the cash flow analysis demonstrated, in S&P's view,
that all of the rated outstanding classes have adequate credit
enhancement available at the rating levels associated with this
rating action.

S&P will continue to review its ratings on the notes and assess
whether they remain consistent with the credit enhancement
available to support them, and S&P will take rating actions as it
deems necessary.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Waterfront CLO 2007-1 Ltd.

                                Cash flow
         Previous               implied      Cash flow    Final
Class    rating                 rating       cushion(i)   rating
A-1      AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos     AAA (sf)     10.03%       AAA (sf)
A-2      AA (sf)/Watch Pos      AA+ (sf)     9.36%        AA+ (sf)
A-3      AA- (sf)/Watch Pos     AA+ (sf)     3.80%        AA+ (sf)
B        BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    A+ (sf)      0.47%        A- (sf)
C        BBB- (sf)              BBB- (sf)    2.34%       BBB- (sf)
D        BB (sf)                BB (sf)      1.49%        BB (sf)

(i) The cash flow cushion is the excess of the tranche break-even
     default rate above the scenario default rate at the cash flow
     implied rating for a given class of rated notes.

RECOVERY RATE AND CORRELATION SENSITIVITY

In addition to S&P's base-case analysis, it generated additional
scenarios in which it made negative adjustments of 10% to the
current collateral pool's recovery rates relative to each
tranche's weighted average recovery rate.  S&P also generated
other scenarios by adjusting the intra- and inter-industry
correlations to assess the current portfolio's sensitivity to
different correlation assumptions assuming the correlation
scenarios outlined below.

Correlation
scenario           Within industry (%)    Between industries (%)
Below base case    15.0                   5.0
Base case          20.0                   7.5
Above base case    25.0                   10.0

                     Recovery   Correlation   Correlation
         Cash flow   decrease   increase      decrease
         implied     implied    implied      implied     Final
Class    rating      rating     rating       rating      rating
A-1      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2      AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
A-3      AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)   AA (sf)      AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
B        A+ (sf)     A- (sf)    A- (sf)      A+ (sf)     A- (sf)
C        BBB- (sf)   BB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)    BBB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)
D        BB (sf)     B+ (sf)    BB (sf)      BB+ (sf)    BB (sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

To assess whether the current portfolio has sufficient diversity,
S&P biased defaults on the assets in the current collateral pool
with the highest spread and lowest base-case recoveries.

                       Spread        Recovery
          Cash flow    compression   compression
          implied      implied       implied     Final
Class     rating       rating        rating      rating
A-1       AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2       AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA- (sf)    AA+ (sf)
A-3       AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      A+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)
B         A+ (sf)      A- (sf)       BBB- (sf)   A- (sf)
C         BBB- (sf)    BB+ (sf)      BB- (sf)    BBB- (sf)
D         BB (sf)      B+ (sf)       CCC (sf)    BB (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Waterfront CLO 2007-1 Ltd.

                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1     941574AA3    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2     941574AB1    AA+ (sf)    AA (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3     941574AC9    AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
B       941574AD7    A- (sf)     BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C       941574AE5    BBB- (sf)   BBB- (sf)
D       941574AF2    BB (sf)     BB (sf)


WFRBS COMMERCIAL 2012-C8: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. G Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings of 15 classes
of WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2012-C8 as follows:

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

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-FL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-FX, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Baa1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(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 (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of the
referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.6% of the
current balance compared to 2.7% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.5% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 2.7% 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 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 24 compared to 25 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the July 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 2% to $1.28 billion
from $1.30 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 80 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 12% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 54% of
the pool. The pool contains no loans with investment-grade
structured credit assessments and no defeased loans.

Three loans, constituting just over 1% 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.

There are no loans in special servicing.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 27% of the pool
balance. The largest loan is the 100 Church Street Loan ($150
million -- 12% of the pool), which represents a participation
interest in a $230 million mortgage loan secured by a 1.1 million
square foot office property in Lower Manhattan. The top three
tenants at the property account for over 62% of the property's net
rentable area (NRA) and include the City of New York, the largest
tenant, and New York State. Since securitization the City of New
York expanded into an additional 132,000 square feet, helping to
boost occupancy to 94% in March 2014, up from 84% at
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 102% and 0.96X,
respectively, compared to 103% and 0.94X at prior review.

The second largest loan is the Brennan Industrial Portfolio Loan
($103 million -- 8% of the pool). The loan is secured by 20
industrial and flex properties totaling 2.4 million square feet
and located across 12 U.S. states. The portfolio was 100% leased
as of March 2014, unchanged from at securitization. Each property
is occupied by a single tenant and eight properties serve as
headquarters for the respective tenants. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 86% and 1.33X, respectively, compared to 87% and 1.31X at
the last review.

The third largest loan is the Northridge Fashion Center Loan ($87
million -- 7% of the pool). The Loan represents a participation
interest in a larger, $240 million mortgage loan, and is secured
by a regional mall in Northridge, California. Mall anchors include
Macy's, Sears, and JC Penney. Mall occupancy was 94% as of March
2014, up from the 90% reported at securitization. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 89% and, 1.09X, respectively, compared to 98%
and 1.00X at the last review.


WHITEHORSE IX: Moody's Rates $8.25MM Class F Notes 'B2'
-------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by WhiteHorse IX, Ltd.

$252,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$32,500,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$20,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$22,750,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
A2 (sf)

$24,250,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

$19,500,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3
(sf)

$8,250,000 Class F Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class F Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

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

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected losses
posed to noteholders. The 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.

WhiteHorse IX 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 and eligible investments, and up
to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
senior unsecured loans. The Issuer's documents require the
portfolio to be at least 85% ramped as of the closing date.

H.I.G. WhiteHorse Capital, 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 has issued 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 February 2014.

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

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3005

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.00%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 49.0%

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
February 2014.

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 3005 to 3455)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 3005 to 3906)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-2 Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -3

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

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.


* Moody's Takes Action on $144MM of Alt-A RMBS Issued in 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of two tranches
from one transaction and downgraded the ratings of eight tranches
from two transactions backed by Alt-A RMBS loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-
FA10

Cl. II-A-1, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 17, 2012
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Issuer: First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-
FA5

Cl. I-A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. I-A-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. I-A-3, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. I-A-4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. I-A-6, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. I-A-PO, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. III-A-2, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Alternative Loan
Trust, Series 2005-WF1

Cl. I-A, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 12, 2010
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. II-A-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 12, 2010
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The ratings upgraded are a result of improving
collateral performance and credit enhancement available to bonds.
The ratings downgraded are due to weaker collateral performance.

In addition, the rating action on First Horizon Alternative
Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-FA5 reflects the correction of an
error in the cash flow model previously used by Moody's in rating
this transaction. In prior rating actions, the cash flow model
applied losses to classes IIIA1 and IIIA2 pro rata, instead of
allocating the pro rata share of class IIIA1 losses to class
IIIA2. The error has now been corrected, and to the action
reflects this change.

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 6.1% in June 2014 from 7.5% in
June 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 $122-Mil. of RMBS Issued 2004 to 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 19 tranches
from six transactions backed by Alt-A and Option ARM RMBS loans,
issued by multiple issuers.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-10

Cl. X-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jun 29, 2012
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. X-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jun 29, 2012
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-11

Cl. 2-A-1A, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 27, 2013
Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-1B, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2010
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Cl. X, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb 22, 2012
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-11XS

Cl. 2-M1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Oct 3, 2013 Upgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 2-M2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 3, 2013
Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-19XS

Cl. A3B, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. A4, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Cl. A5, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2011 Downgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. A6A, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2011
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A6B, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Confirmed at Baa2 (sf)

Cl. A6C, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2011
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-21XS

Cl. 2-A5B, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A6B, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-6XS

Cl. A3, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. A5A, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. A5B, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 14,
2012 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Cl. A6, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The majority of the actions are a result of the recent performance
of the underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss
expectations on the pools. The ratings upgraded are a result of
improving performance and credit enhancement available to these
bonds.

In addition, Moody's has upgraded the ratings of Class X-1 and X-2
issued by Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-10 to reflect the
correction of a prior error. In our June 2012 rating action, the
notional amounts of these interest-only securities were linked to
the wrong tranches. The error has now been corrected, and the
actions reflect this change.

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 6.2% in July 2014 from 7.3% in
July 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 $48MM of Alt-A RMBS Issued 2003-2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of one tranche
and downgraded the ratings of ten tranches from four transactions
backed by Alt-A RMBS loans, issued by multiple issuers.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2003-3

Cl. 1-A-1, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on May 2, 2012
Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2004-3

Cl. 4-A-1, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on May 2, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-2, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on May 2, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-X, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on May 2, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 7-A-1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on May 2, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 7-A-X, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on May 2, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2004-9

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Feb 15, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-12H

Cl. 1A, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2011
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 1A-IO, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Confirmed at Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 1A-PO, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2011
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 2A, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on May 14, 2012
Confirmed at B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The ratings upgraded are a result of improving
collateral performance and credit enhancement available to bonds.
The ratings downgraded are due to weaker collateral performance.

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 6.1% in June 2014 from 7.5% in
June 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 Raises Ratings on $31.5MM of RMBS Issued by Two Issuers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of eleven
tranches issued by two issuers. The tranches are backed by Prime
Jumbo RMBS loans issued from 2004.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2004-HYB1

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Feb 27, 2013 Upgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. A-3-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 27, 2013
Affirmed B1 (sf)

Cl. A-3-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 27, 2013
Affirmed B1 (sf)

Cl. A-4-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Feb 27, 2013
Affirmed Caa1 (sf)

Cl. A-4-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Feb 27, 2013
Affirmed Caa2 (sf)

Cl. IO-3-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 27, 2013
Affirmed B1 (sf)

Cl. IO-3-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 27, 2013
Affirmed B1 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Feb 27, 2013 Affirmed
C (sf)

Issuer: GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-13F

Cl. 3A-3, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2012
Confirmed at B1 (sf)

Cl. 4A-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2012
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. 4A-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 21, 2012
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The rating upgrades are due to improving collateral
performance and/or buildup of credit enhancement.

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 6.1% in June 2014 down from
7.5% in June 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6.0% to 7.0% 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.


* Moody's Takes Action on $5.9MM of Prime Jumbo RMBS by 2 Issuers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of two tranches
and downgraded the ratings of two tranches issued by two issuers.
The tranches are backed by Prime Jumbo RMBS loans issued from 2004
and 2007.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Chase Mortgage Finance Trust, Series 2004-S3

  Cl. A-P, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 30, 2013
  Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

  Cl. IA-1, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 30, 2013
  Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Citicorp Mortgage Securities Trust, Series 2007-4

  Cl. IIIA-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jun 4, 2010
  Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

  Cl. IIIA-IO, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jun 4, 2010
  Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are primarily a result of the recent performance of
the underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectation
on the pools. The rating upgrades are due to improving collateral
performance. The rating downgrades are a result of deteriorating
performance and structural features resulting in higher expected
losses for the bond than previously anticipated.

The rating actions also reflect corrections to the cash-flow
models used by Moody's in rating these transactions. In prior
rating actions, the calculations of principal payments to the
principal-only bonds were modeled incorrectly. The errors have now
been corrected, and rating actions reflect these changes.

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 6.1% in June 2014 down from
7.5% in June 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6.0% to 7.0% 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 16 Tranches on $336MM of RMBS
-------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 16 tranches
backed by Manufactured Housing RMBS loans, issued by miscellaneous
issuers.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
2006-MH1

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 10, 2013
Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 10, 2013
Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Conseco Finance Securitizations Corp. Series 2002-1

Class M-1-A, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 2, 2006
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Class M-1-F, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 2, 2006
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Green Tree Financial Corporation MH 1995-04

B-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 10, 2013 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Green Tree Financial Corporation MH 1995-05

B-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 10, 2013 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Green Tree Financial Corporation MH 1995-07

B-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 29, 2003 Downgraded
to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Green Tree Financial Corporation MH 1995-08

B-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Mar 30, 2009 Downgraded to
Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: Green Tree Financial Corporation MH 1996-01

M-1, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Dec 29, 2003 Downgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Green Tree Financial Corporation MH 1998-04

A-5, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 2, 2006 Downgraded to
Ba3 (sf)

A-6, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 2, 2006 Downgraded to
Ba3 (sf)

A-7, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 2, 2006 Downgraded to
Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Green Tree Financial Corporation MH 1998-07

A-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug 2, 2006 Downgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Greenpoint Manufactured Housing Contract Trust 1999-5

Cl. M-1A, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 10, 2013
Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. M-1B, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Sep 10, 2013
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Oakwood Mortgage Investors, Inc. Series 1997-D

M, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 10, 2013 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The upgrade rating actions are primarily due to the
build-up in credit enhancement due to sequential pay structures
and non-amortizing subordinate bonds. Performance on the
underlying pools has remained generally stable from Moody's last
review.

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 6.1% in June 2014 from 7.5% in
June 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 Takes Actions on 10 U.S. Synthetic CDO Deals After Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services took various rating actions on
10 tranches from 10 synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
transactions.

The rating actions follow S&P's monthly review of synthetic CDO
transactions.

The CreditWatch positive placements and rating upgrades reflect
the transactions' seasoning, the rating stability of the obligors
in the underlying reference portfolios the past few months, and
the synthetic rated overcollateralization (SROC) ratios that had
risen above 100% at the next highest rating level.

The affirmation follows S&P's monthly SROC review and reflects
rating stability in the reference portfolio and SROC ratios that
were at or above 100% at the current rating level.

RATING AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

Athenee CDO PLC
Series 2007-12
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
B                   BB (sf)             BB- (sf)/Watch Pos

Cloverie PLC
Series 2007-43
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
Notes               BB (sf)/Watch Pos   BB (sf)

Cloverie PLC
Series 2007-44
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
Notes               BB (sf)/Watch Pos   BB (sf)

Credit Default Swap
CDS Reference No. Torino II
                            Rating
Class               To                      From
Tranche             CCC-srb (sf)/Watch Pos  CCC-srb (sf)

Credit Default Swap
CDO No. 795246
                            Rating
Class               To                   From
Tranche             Bsrb (sf)/Watch Pos  Bsrb (sf)

Infiniti SPC Ltd.
Series 10A-2
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
10A-2               BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos  BBB+ (sf)

Infiniti SPC Ltd.
Series 10B-1
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
10B-1               BB (sf)             BB- (sf)/Watch Pos

Marvel Finance 2007-1 LLC
Series 2007-1
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
IA                  BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos  BB+ (sf)

Marvel Finance 2007-4 LLC
Series 2007-4
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
IA                  BBB (sf)/Watch Pos  BBB (sf)

Newport Waves CDO
Series 2
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A1-$FMS             BBB+ (sf)           BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos


* S&P Raises 11 Rating on 4 CDO Transactions
--------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on 11
classes from four U.S. cash flow trust-preferred collateralized
debt obligation (CDO) transactions and removed nine of these
ratings from CreditWatch with positive implications.

The upgrades mainly reflect the improved credit quality of the
underlying trust-preferred securities, which are mainly issued by
financial institutions, as well as improvement in principal
coverage ratios due to paydowns on the senior tranches.  The
paydowns have generally accelerated over the past year due to
increased redemption of the underlying trust preferred securities.
Most of the transactions' senior notes have also benefitted from
the excess spread that was captured because of
overcollateralization (O/C) ratio failures, leading to further
paydowns to the senior notes.

Since S&P's last rating actions, the aggregate balance of
defaulted and deferred obligations in each of the four
transactions' collateral portfolios decreased.  This was primarily
due to a decrease in the number of underlying trust-preferred
securities deferring their interest payments.

MMCapS Funding XVII Ltd. continues to fail its class C principal
coverage test.  As of the May 27, 2014, trustee report, the class
C principal coverage test was 97.81% compared with a required
minimum of 102.10%.  As a result, the transaction continues to
divert available interest proceeds (after payment the class C-1
and C-2 interest) to pay down the class A-1 notes.  After the June
2014 payment date, the outstanding class A-1 note balance is
$69.28 million (representing approximately 42.76% of its balance
at issuance).  This is down from $94.64 million outstanding as of
the May 2013 trustee report, which S&P used for its last rating
action.  Over this same time period, the aggregate balance of
defaulted and deferred obligations in the underlying portfolio
dropped by $8.00 million.

Preferred Term Securities XVI Ltd. continues to fail all of its
principal coverage tests.  As of the June 2014 trustee report, the
most senior principal coverage test was 119.48% compared with a
required minimum of 128.00%.  The transaction is currently
benefiting the rated notes by diverting excess interest proceeds
to pay down the class A-1 notes in connection with this failure,
which is causing a shortfall in the payment of interest to the
unrated class B, C, and D notes.  Following the June 2014
distribution, the balance of the class A-1 notes is $209.10
million, which is 63.90% of its balance at issuance.  This
compares with $270.35 million outstanding in March 2012 trustee
report, which S&P used for its last rating action.  The
transaction has also seen a modest improvement in the total
balance of defaulted and deferred obligations in the underlying
portfolio, with decreases of $7.60 million and $74.92 million,
respectively, over the same time period.

Preferred Term Securities XXIII Ltd. is currently failing its
class C and D mezzanine coverage tests.  As a result of the class
C coverage test failure, the transaction is diverting available
interest proceeds to pay down each of the notes pro rata, which is
causing a deferral of interest on the class D notes.  Since the
March 2012 trustee report (which S&P used for its last rating
action), total paydown to all notes in the transaction was $143.57
million, with $119.50 million allocated to the rated notes.
Though the transaction has seen an increase of $10.00 million in
defaulted obligations over that time period, deferred obligations
dropped by $75.50 million, which translates to a net positive
movement in the credit quality of the underling collateral.

Trapeza Edge CDO Ltd. had paid down about 36% of its class A-1
notes following the failure of its class B O/C test.  Since the
transaction is in compliance with all its coverage tests, it is no
longer diverting excess interest proceeds to pay down the class A-
1 notes.  As per the June 2014 monthly trustee report, the class B
O/C ratio is 105.42% compared with its required minimum of
104.49%.  This represents a large increase from the 96.34% result
in May 2012, at the time of S&P's last rating action.  In
addition, the aggregate balance of defaulted and deferred
obligations dropped by $16.2 million over the same time period.

S&P's review of these transactions included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transactions, as reflected in the
aforementioned trustee reports, to estimate future performance.
In line with S&P's criteria, its cash flow scenarios applied
forward-looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of
defaults, and recoveries upon default, under various interest rate
and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's analysis
considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest,
ultimate principal, or both to each of the rated tranches.  The
cash flow analysis results demonstrated, in S&P's view, that all
of the rated outstanding classes have adequate credit enhancement
available at the rating levels associated with these rating
actions.

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.

CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND KEY METRICS COMPARISON

MMCapS Funding XVII Ltd.
                             Notional balance (Mil. $)
Class                     May 2013 (i)            May 2014
A-1                             94.64                69.28 (ii)
A-2                             19.50                19.50
B                               33.00                33.00
C-1                             35.48                35.48
C-2                             35.48                35.48

Principal Coverage Tests (%)
A/B                            139.01               154.70
C                               93.78                97.81

(i) Trustee report used for our July 2013 rating actions. (ii)
Following the June 2014 distribution date.

Preferred Term Securities XVI Ltd.

                             Notional balance (Mil. $)
Class                   March 2012 (i)           June 2014 (ii)
A-1                            270.35               209.10
A-2                             69.90                69.90
A-3                             12.00                12.00
B                               65.10                67.36
C                               81.80                85.82
D                               45.39                48.90

Principal Coverage Tests (%)
Senior (A)                      87.69               120.13
B                               74.01                97.55
C                               61.88                78.70
D                               56.72                70.89

(i) Trustee report used for our June 2012 rating actions.
(ii) Following the June 2014 distribution date.

Preferred Term Securities XXIII Ltd.

                             Notional balance (Mil. $)
Class                   March 2012 (i)           June 2014 (ii)
A-1                            417.96               347.81
A-2                            137.46               134.42
A-FP                           214.99               168.67
B-1                             67.34                64.26
B-2                             34.48                29.55
B-FP                            47.25                40.99
C-1                             83.14                79.55
C-2                             32.21                27.43
C-FP                            44.14                42.72
D-1                             77.34                82.28
D-FP                            32.39                34.03

Coverage Tests (%)
Senior (A)                     122.10               141.05
B                              102.31               116.85
C                               87.18                98.15
D                               79.14                87.30

(i) Trustee report used for our June 2012 rating actions.
(ii) Following the June 2014 distribution date.

Trapeza Edge CDO Ltd.
                             Notional balance (Mil. $)
Class                        May 2012            June 2014
A-1                            140.48               124.42
A-2                             26.00                26.00
A-3                             32.00                32.00
B-1                             50.50                50.50
B-2                             22.50                22.50

O/C Tests (%)
A                              131.77               147.61
B                               96.34               105.42

RATING ACTIONS

MMCaps Funding XVII Ltd.
                       Rating
Class              To           From
A-1                BBB (sf)     BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2                BB+ (sf)     BB- (sf)/Watch Pos
B                  B+ (sf)      CCC (sf)/Watch Pos

Preferred Term Securities XVI Ltd.
                       Rating
Class              To           From
A-1                BBB-(sf)     CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2                B+ (sf)      CCC- (sf)
A-3                B+ (sf)      CCC- (sf)

Preferred Term Securities XXIII Ltd.
                       Rating
Class              To           From
A-1                BBB (sf)     BB (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2                BB+ (sf)     B (sf)/Watch Pos
A-FP               BB+ (sf)     B (sf)/Watch Pos

Trapeza Edge CDO Ltd.
                       Rating
Class              To           From
A-1                BBB (sf)      BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3                BB- (sf)      B+ (sf)/Watch Pos


* S&P Withdraws Ratings on 53 Classes From 19 CDO Transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on 52
classes from 18 cash flow (CF) collateralized loan obligation
(CLO) transactions and one class from one CF collateral debt
obligation (CDO) transaction backed by commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS).

The withdrawals follow the complete paydown of the notes as
reflected in the most recent trustee-issued note payment reports:

   -- Ares Enhanced Loan Investment Strategy II Ltd. (CF CLO):
      optional redemption in July 2014;

   -- Babson CLO Ltd. 2006-I (CF CLO): senior-most tranches paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Ballyrock CLO 2006-2 Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in
      July 2014;

   -- Black Diamond CLO 2013-1 Ltd. (CF CLO): class X notes(i)
      paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Blue Hill CLO Ltd. (CF CLO): class X notes(i) paid down,
      other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Callidus Debt Partners CLO Fund IV Ltd. (CF CLO): optional
      redemption in July 2014;

   -- Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2013-4 Ltd. (CF CLO):
      class X notes(i) paid down, other rated tranches still
      outstanding;

   -- Denali Capital CLO VI Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranches
      paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Eaton Vance CDO IX Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Emporia Preferred Funding II Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most
      tranches paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Fairway Loan Funding Co. (CF CLO): senior-most tranches paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Founders Grove CLO Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in
      July 2014;

   -- Gulf Stream-Compass CLO 2005-II Ltd. (CF CLO): optional
      redemption in July 2014;

   -- Kennecott Funding Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- LCM IV Ltd. (CF CLO): last remaining rated tranches paid
      down;

   -- Madison Square 2004-1 Ltd. (CF CDO of CMBS): senior-most
      tranche paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Neuberger Berman CLO XVI Ltd. (CF CLO): class X notes(i)
      paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Pacifica CDO V Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in July
      2014; and

   -- Silverado CLO 2006-I Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding.

(i) An "X note" within a CLO is generally a note with a principal
     balance intended to be repaid early in the CLO's life using
     interest proceeds from the CLO's waterfall.

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Ares Enhanced Loan Investment Strategy II Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
B-1                 NR                  AA (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2                 NR                  AA (sf)/Watch Pos
C-1                 NR                  A- (sf)/Watch Pos
C-2                 NR                  A- (sf)/Watch Pos

Babson CLO Ltd. 2006-I
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2B                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-3                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Ballyrock CLO 2006-2 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A                   NR                  AAA (sf)
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
C                   NR                  AAA (sf)
D                   NR                  AA+ (sf)
E                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)

Black Diamond CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                   NR                  AAA (sf)

Blue Hill CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                   NR                  AAA (sf)

Callidus Debt Partners CLO Fund IV Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1A                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-1B                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
C                   NR                  AA- (sf)
D                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)

Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2013-4 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                   NR                  AAA (sf)

Denali Capital CLO VI Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1L                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-1LR               NR                  AAA (sf)

Eaton Vance CDO IX Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1A                NR                  AAA (sf)

Emporia Preferred Funding II Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-3                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Fairway Loan Funding Co.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1L                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-1LV               NR                  AAA (sf)

Founders Grove CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
C                   NR                  AA+ (sf)
D                   NR                  CCC+ (sf)

Gulf Stream-Compass CLO 2005-II Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
C                   NR                  AAA (sf)
D                   NR                  BB+ (sf)

Kennecott Funding Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)

LCM IV Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
C                   NR                  AA (sf)
D                   NR                  BB+ (sf)

Madison Square 2004-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
O                   NR                  BB (sf)

Neuberger Berman CLO XVI Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                   NR                  AAA (sf)

Pacifica CDO V Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
B-1                 NR                  AA+ (sf)
B-2                 NR                  AA+ (sf)
C                   NR                  A+ (sf)
D                   NR                  BB+ (sf)

Silverado CLO 2006-I Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1-S               NR                  AAA (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 ***