TCR_Public/141019.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, October 19, 2014, Vol. 18, No. 291

                            Headlines

ABACUS 2006-10: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 5 Note Classes
ACAPULCO FUNDING 2005-1: S&P Puts B+ Rating on CreditWatch Neg
AVENUE CLO: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on $10MM Cl. B-2L Notes
AVERY POINT IV: S&P Affirms 'BB-' Rating on Class E Notes
BAKER STREET 2005-1: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on $9.4MM Notes

BAMLL 2011-07C1: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class A-3B Notes
BANC OF AMERICA 2007-4: Fitch Raises Rating on A-J Notes to 'Bsf'
BEAR STEARNS 2006-PWR11: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class B Notes
BEAR STEARNS 2006-PWR14: S&P Affirms CCC Rating on Class E Notes
BEAR STEARNS 2007-PWR17: Fitch Cuts Cl. A-J Certs Rating to CCC

BLACKROCK SENIOR: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Class D Notes
BLUEMOUNTAIN CLO: Moody's Lowers Rating on $27.8MM D Notes to Ba1
CALCULUS CMBS: Moody's Affirms 'Ca' Rating on 5 Note Classes
CANYON CAPITAL 2014-2: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on E Notes
CD 2005-CD1: Moody's Lowers Rating on Class H Certificates to C

CFCRE COMMERCIAL 2011-C2: Moody's Affirms B2 on Cl. G Notes
CIFC FUNDING 2006-II: Moody's Hikes Rating on B-2L Notes to 'Ba1'
CIFC FUNDING 2007-I: S&P Raises Rating on Class B-2L Notes to BB+
CIT CLO I: S&P Withdraws BB+ Rating on Class E Notes
COLONY MULTIFAMILY 2014-1: Moody's Rates Class F Certs '(P)B3'

COMM MORTGAGE 2014-CCRE20: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' on Class F Certs
CREDIT SUISSE 2003-C5: S&P Raises Rating on Class J Notes to BB-
CRUSADE ABS 2012-1: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on Class E Notes
CWABS INC: Moody's Reviews $1.9MM 2nd Lien RMBS for Downgrade
EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2014-3: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D Notes

FORTRESS CREDIT V: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class F Notes
G-STAR 2003-3: Fitch Affirms 'CCsf' Rating on Class A-2 Notes
GE BUSINESS 2004-1: Moody's Lowers Rating on Class C Notes to B2
GHISALLO LIMITED: Moody's Ups Rating on $400MM Cl. A Notes to Ba3
GLENEAGLES CLO: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $49.5MM Cl. D Notes

GMAC COMMERCIAL 2000-C3: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. K Notes
GS MORTGAGE 2013-NYC5: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on XA-2 Certs
IVY HILL IX: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on $25MM Class E Notes
JP MORGAN 2005-LDP3: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on Class G Secs.
JP MORGAN 2006-LDP9: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on 2 Cert Classes

JP MORGAN 2013-C15: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs
JP MORGAN 2014-PHH: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
LCM XVII: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
LIMEROCK CLO III: Moody's Rates $12.5MM Cl. E Notes '(P)B3'
MARLBOROUGH STREET: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $9MM Cl E Notes

MASTR ASSET 2003-WMC2: Moody's Ups Cl. M-3 Notes Rating to Caa1
MCF CLO IV: S&P Assigns Preliminary BB Rating on Class E Notes
MERRILL LYNCH 2002-MW1: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Notes Classes to D
MERRILL LYNCH 2006-C1: Fitch Affirms C Rating on 8 Cert. Classes
MESA WEST: S&P Affirms 'CCC-' Rating on 4 Note Classes

MORGAN STANLEY 2005-IQ9: Fitch Affirms CCCsf Rating on Cl. H Certs
MSBAM TRUST 2013-C7: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class G Certs
NATIONS EQUIPMENT: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating on Class C Notes
OCP CLO 2014-7: S&P Assigns Prelim. B Rating on Class E Notes
PREFERRED TERM XXII: S&P Raises Rating on Class A-2 Notes to BB

PREFERRED TERM XXV: S&P Raises Rating on Class A-2 Notes to B-
RAIT CRE I: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on Class C Notes
REGATTA V FUNDING: Moody's Rates $27.7MM Class D Notes '(P)Ba2'
SF ADVISORS III: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class A Notes to Caa3
SHINNECOCK CLO 2006-1: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Class E Notes

SILVERADO CLO 2006-II: S&P Affirms BB- Rating on Class D Notes
TIAA STRUCTURED II: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. A-2 Notes to Caa3
TRIMARAN CLO IV: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Class B-2L Notes
TRIMARAN VII: Moody's Raises Rating on $12.5MM B-2L Notes to Ba2
WACHOVIA BANK 2005-C20: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to BB-

WACHOVIA BANK 2007-C34: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 10 Certs
WESTCHESTER CLO: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes to 'BB+'
WHITEHORSE IV: Moody's Raises Rating on $15MM Cl. D Notes to Ba2
ZOHAR III: S&P Lowers Rating on 4 Note Classes to 'B'


                             *********

ABACUS 2006-10: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 5 Note Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the
following notes issued by Abacus 2006-10, Ltd.:

Cl. A, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov 20, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Nov 20, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 20, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 20, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 20, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 20, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 20, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has affirmed the ratings 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 (CRE CDO
Synthetic) transactions.

Abacus 2006-10, Ltd. is a static synthetic transaction backed by a
portfolio of credit default swaps on commercial mortgage backed
securities (CMBS) (100% of the reference obligation balance). All
of the CMBS reference obligations were securitized in 2005 (27.5%)
and 2006 (72.5%). Currently, 74% of the reference obligations are
publicly rated by Moody's. As of the September 29, 2014 Trustee
report, the aggregate notional balance of reference obligations
has decreased to $3.60 billion from $3.75 billion at issuance.

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 2557, compared to 2537 at last review. The current ratings on
the Moody's-rated reference obligations and the assessments of the
non-Moody's rated reference obligations follow: Aaa-Aa3 and 15.4%
compared to 7.5% at last review; A1-A3 and 13.3% compare to 16.1%
at last review; Baa1-Baa3 and 17.5% compared to 21.1% at last
review; Ba1-Ba3 and 20.0% compared to 13.6% at last review; B1-B3
and 7.9% compared to 16.5% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 25.9%
compared to 25.2%.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 1.1 years, compared to 2.2 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying reference obligations.

Moody's modeled a variable WARR with a mean of 0.0%, compared to a
mean of 13.9% at last review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 11.8%, compared to 13.8% 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 ratings of the reference obligations and credit
estimates. Notching the reference obligations down by -1 notch
would result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero to one notch downward (e.g. one notch downward
implies Baa3 to Ba1). Notching the reference obligations upward by
+1 notch would result in no modeled rating movement.

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.


ACAPULCO FUNDING 2005-1: S&P Puts B+ Rating on CreditWatch Neg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its 'B+ (sf)' rating on
the class A notes from Acapulco Funding 2005-1 (Acapulco) on
CreditWatch with negative implications.  Acapulco Funding 2005-1
is a repackage transaction backed by the class A-1 notes from
Aviation Capital Group Trust's (ACG Trust's) series 2000-1, which
is in turn backed by the lease revenue and sales proceeds from a
commercial aircraft portfolio.

The negative CreditWatch placement reflects the significant
increase in the class A notes' loan-to-value (LTV) ratio to 167%
as of Sept. 15, 2014, from 112% as of June 15, 2014, as a result
of the increase in the LTV ratio of the underlying ACG Trust's
class A-1 notes.  On Oct. 2, 2014, S&P placed its rating on ACG
Trust's class A-1 notes on CreditWatch with negative implications.

The negative CreditWatch placement on ACG Trust's class A-1 notes
was a result of its recent sale of two aircraft significantly
below the appraised values since the June 15, 2014, payment date
and the updated annual aircraft appraised values.  The annual
updated appraisal (as of Aug. 15, 2014) shows a substantial
decline in aircraft value, especially on the Boeing 737 Classics.

The credit enhancement of Acapulco's class A notes include over-
collateralization ($50 million Acapulco's class A notes are backed
by $58.14 million ACG Trust's class A-1 notes) and excess spread
(spread difference between Acapulco's class A notes and ACG
Trust's class A-1 notes).  Due to the overcollateralization and
excess spread, Acapulco's class A notes have amortized at a much
faster speed than that of ACG Trust's class A-1 notes.  However,
the significant value decline in ACG Trust's aircraft portfolio is
likely to deplete the cushion available for Acapulco's class A
notes at the 'B+' rating.

S&P will resolve the CreditWatch placement after it completes its
comprehensive review of both transactions.


AVENUE CLO: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on $10MM Cl. B-2L Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Avenue CLO Fund, Ltd.:

  $9,000,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due February 2017,
  (current outstanding balance of $6,838,432.40), Upgraded to A1
  (sf); previously on June 23, 2014 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

  $10,000,000 Class B-1F 6.59% Notes Due February 2017 (current
  outstanding balance of $7,598,258.22), Upgraded to A1 (sf);
  previously on June 23, 2014 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

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

  $10,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due February 2017
  (current outstanding balance of $8,523,443.25), Affirmed Caa1
  (sf); previously on June 23, 2014 Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Avenue CLO Fund, Ltd. issued in December 2004, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in
February 2010.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
Class B-1 notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since May 2014 The Class B-1 notes have
been paid down by approximately 24% or $4.5 million since then.
Based on the trustee's September 2014 report, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class B-1, and Class B-2
notes are reported at 183.50%, and 113.73%, respectively, versus
May 2014 levels of 133.6%, and 107.63% %, respectively. Notably,
all OC test ratios are calculated by applying "haircuts" to par
based on the deal's exposure to Caa-rated investments in excess of
7.5% for the Class B-2L notes and in excess of 10% for the B-1L
notes. The haircuts are based on the market values of such excess
Caa-rated investments. As of the September 2014 trustee report,
these haircuts resulted in material adjustments to the Class B-1,
and Class B-2 OC ratios.

The deal has also incurred administrative expenses which are
significantly less than what is allowed in the transaction
documents and that was previously assumed in Moody's analysis. In
consideration of these lower historical levels, Moody's analysis
gave consideration to modeling such expenses at levels closer to
those recently reported.

The portfolio includes a number of investments in securities that
mature after the notes do. Based on the trustee's September
report, securities that mature after the notes do currently make
up approximately 11.4% of the total portfolio par including
defaulted assets. These investments could expose the notes to
market risk in the event of liquidation when the notes mature.
Despite the increase in the OC ratio of the Class B-2 note,
Moody's affirmed the rating on the Class B-2 note owing to market
risk stemming from the exposure to these long-dated assets.

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. The deal's
increased exposure owing to amendments to loan agreements
extending maturities continues. In light of the deal's sizable
exposure to long-dated assets, which increases its sensitivity to
the liquidation assumptions in the rating analysis, Moody's ran
scenarios using a range of liquidation value assumptions. However,
actual long-dated asset exposures and prevailing market prices and
conditions at the CLO's maturity will drive the deal's actual
losses, if any, from long-dated assets.

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% (2918)

Class B-1L: +1

Class B-1F: +1

Class B-2L: 0

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (4378)

Class B-1L: -1

Class B-1F: -1

Class B-2L: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014. In addition, because of
the collateral pool's low diversity, Moody's used CDOROM(TM) to
simulate a default distribution that it then used as an input in
the cash flow model.

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 $28.2 million, defaulted par
of $16.2 million, a weighted average default probability of 14.91%
(implying a WARF of 3648), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 45.69%, a diversity score of 7 and a weighted average
spread of 4.36%.

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.


AVERY POINT IV: S&P Affirms 'BB-' Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on Avery
Point IV CLO Ltd./Avery Point IV Corp.'s $665.75 million fixed-
and floating-rate notes following the transaction's effective date
as of Aug. 12, 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 by the
collateral manager, and may also reflect its assumptions about the
transaction's investment guidelines.  This is because not all
assets in the portfolio have been purchased.

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

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

On an ongoing basis after 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

Avery Point IV CLO Ltd./Avery Point IV Corp.

Class                      Rating                       Amount
                                                      (mil. $)
X                          AAA (sf)                       4.00
A                          AAA (sf)                     427.00
B-1                        AA (sf)                       66.25
B-2                        AA (sf)                       10.00
C (deferrable)             A (sf)                        66.50
D (deferrable)             BBB (sf)                      39.25
E (deferrable)             BB- (sf)                      36.75
F (deferrable)             B- (sf)                       16.00


BAKER STREET 2005-1: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on $9.4MM Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Baker Street Funding 2005-1 CLO:

  $18,000,000 Class C Notes Due 2018, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf);
  previously on June 19, 2014 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

  $16,000,000 Class D Notes Due 2018 (current outstanding balance
  of $14,729,583.72), Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on
  June 19, 2014 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

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

  $234,000,000 Class A-1 Floating Notes Due 2018 (current
  outstanding balance of $129,925,834.21), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
  previously on June 19, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $35,000,000 Class A-2 Notes Due 2018 (current outstanding
  balance of $19,433,351.28), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on
  June 19, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $20,000,000 Class B Notes Due 2018, Affirmed Aaa (sf);
  previously on June 19, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

  $9,400,000 Class E Notes Due 2018, Affirmed Ba2 (sf);
  previously on June 19, 2014 Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Baker Street Funding 2005-1 CLO, issued in December 2005, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in December 2011.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since June 2014. The Class A notes have
been paid down by approximately 12% or $21 million since that
time. Based on the Moody's calculations, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, Class D
and Class E notes are currently 133.46%, 120.64%, 111.84% and
106.87%, respectively, versus June 2014 levels of 129.37%,
118.20%, 110.40% and 105.93%, 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) Post-Reinvestment Period Trading: Subject to certain
requirements, the deal can reinvest certain proceeds after the end
of the reinvestment period, and as such the manager has the
ability to erode some of the collateral quality metrics to the
covenant levels. Such reinvestment could affect the transaction
either positively or negatively. In particular, Moody's tested for
a possible extension of the actual weighted average life in its
analysis.

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% (1973)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +2

Class D: +2

Class E: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2959)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -2

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 $221.58 million, defaulted
par of $13.7 million, a weighted average default probability of
11.46% (implying a WARF of 2466), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 51.24%, a diversity score of 32 and a weighted
average spread of 2.72%.

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.


BAMLL 2011-07C1: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class A-3B Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the
following notes issued by BAMLL Re-REMIC Trust 2011-07C1:

Cl. A-3A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3B, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Ba1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

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

BAMLL 2011-07C1 is a non-pooled Re-Remic pass through Trust
("resecuritization") backed by one ring-fenced commercial mortgage
backed security (CMBS) certificate; 19.2% of the Class A-3 issued
by CSMC 2007-C1 (the "Underlying Security"). The certificate is
backed by fixed-rate mortgage loans secured by first liens on
commercial and multifamily properties.

Moody's has affirmed the ratings on the certificate. The
affirmation reflected a cumulative base expected loss of 14.7% of
the Underlying Security.

Updates to key parameters, including the constant default rate
(CDR), the constant prepayment rate (CPR), the weighted average
life (WAL), and the weighted average recovery rate (WARR), did not
materially change the expected loss estimate of the resecuritized
classes.

The WAL of the Underlying Security is 2.1 years, assuming a CDR of
0% and CPR of 0%.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Resecuritizations" published in February 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.

Because the credit quality of the resecuritization depends on that
of the underlying CMBS certificate, whose credit quality in turn
depends on the performance of the underlying commercial mortgage
pool, any change to the ratings on the underlying certificates
could lead to a review of the ratings of the certificate.

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.


BANC OF AMERICA 2007-4: Fitch Raises Rating on A-J Notes to 'Bsf'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded two and affirmed 17 classes of Banc of
America Commercial Mortgage Trust, series 2007-4 (BACM 2007-4).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The upgrade reflects lower than expected losses on disposed loans
and improved performance across the pool since the last rating
action.  Fitch modeled losses of 11.1% of the remaining pool and
11.3% of the original pool (including losses of 4.5% incurred to
date).  Fitch has identified 27 loans (29.1%) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes six specially serviced loans (2.3%).

As of the October 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance was $1.4 billion, down from $2.2 billion at
issuance.  There are two defeased loans (0.8%).  There are
cumulative interest shortfalls in the amount of $7.3 million
currently affecting classes H through S.

The largest contributor to modeled losses remains the partial
interest-only loan (7.7%) secured by a 231,512 square foot (sf)
office property located in La Jolla, CA.  The March 2014 occupancy
improved to 90% from 88% in March 2013, but the debt service
coverage ratio (DSCR), based upon net operating income (NOI),
remains low at 0.40x for the nine month period ending March 31,
2014.  Although improved since the 0.31x reported at trailing 12
months (TTM) ending March 2013 and 0.07x reported for the TTM
ending June 30, 2011, the DSCR is still significantly below the
1.29x reported at issuance.  The DSCR reported at issuance was
based on stabilized cash flow.  The property is located in the La
Jolla submarket of San Diego, which reported a market vacancy of
11.8% according to REIS as of second-quarter 2014.  Although the
property is underperforming, the loan remains current.  The
borrower has continued to cover debt service shortfalls out of
pocket.

The second largest contributor to losses is an interest-only loan
(1.4%) secured by a 248,900 sf industrial property located in
Phoenix, AZ.  The property's lone tenant vacated the property upon
lease expiration in February 2012 and the property remains vacant.
As of March 2013, the DSCR, based on NOI, is -0.31x.  The special
servicer continues to actively market the space for lease.

The third largest contributor to losses is an interest-only loan
(4.7%) secured by a 256,670 sf office property located in
Scottsdale, AZ.  As of June 2014, property occupancy was 97.2%,
representing an improvement from the 96% and 94% reported at year-
end (YE) 2013 and YE 2012, respectively.  Although occupancy has
improved, the YE 2013 DSCR, on a NOI basis, remains low at 1.06x,
compared to 1.50x reported at issuance.  Approximately 71.8% of
the total property square footage rolls prior to the loan's
maturity.  The property is located in the Scottsdale submarket of
Phoenix, which reported a market vacancy of 25.3% according to
REIS as of second-quarter 2014.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch applied additional sensitivity scenarios in order to
determine upgrades; including additional cash flow stresses and
higher loss severities on modeled maturity defaults.  Ratings on
classes A1-A through A-J are expected to remain stable due to
sufficient credit enhancement.  Downgrades to the distressed
classes (those rated below 'B') are likely as losses are realized
on specially serviced loans.

Fitch has upgraded these classes as indicated:

   -- $223.1 million class A-M to 'AAsf' from 'Asf'; Outlook
      Stable;
   -- $178.5 million class A-J to 'Bsf' from 'CCCsf'; Outlook
      Stable assigned.

Fitch has affirmed these classes as indicated:

   -- $177 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $637.2 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $22.3 million class B at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
   -- $19.5 million class C at 'CCCsf'; RE 40%;
   -- $22.3 million class D at 'CCCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $22.3 million class E at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $13.9 million class F at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $16.7 million class G at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $27.9 million class H at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $22.3 million class J at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0.9 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%;
   -- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Fitch does not rate class S. Class A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-SB notes
are paid in full.  The rating on class XW was previously
withdrawn.


BEAR STEARNS 2006-PWR11: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class B Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its rating on the class
A-M commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Bear
Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-PWR11, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  At the
same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on 10 other classes and
withdrew its rating on one other class from the same transaction.

S&P's rating actions on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates follow S&P's 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.

S&P raised its rating on class A-M to reflect its expectation of
the available credit enhancement for this class, which S&P
believes is greater than its most recent estimate of necessary
credit enhancement for the rating level.  The upgrade also
reflects S&P's views regarding the current and future performance
of the transaction's collateral and available liquidity support.

The affirmations on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit
enhancement for these classes will be within its estimate of the
necessary credit enhancement required for the current ratings.
The affirmations also reflect S&P's views regarding the current
and future performance of the transaction's collateral, the
transaction's structure, and the liquidity support available to
the classes.

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

S&P withdrew its 'AAA (sf)' rating on class A-AB following the
full repayment of its outstanding principal balance as noted in
the Sept. 11, 2014, trustee remittance report.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 11, 2014, trustee remittance report, the
collateral pool balance was $1.41 billion, which is 75.9% of the
pool balance at issuance.  The pool currently includes 142 loans
and one real estate-owned (REO) asset, down from 183 loans at
issuance.  Two of these assets ($30.7 million, 2.2%) are with the
special servicer; eight ($47.1 million, 3.3%) were reported as
defeased; and 41 ($415.8 million, 29.4%) are on the master
servicers' combined watchlist.  The master servicers, Wells Fargo
Bank N.A. and Prudential Asset Resources Inc., reported financial
information for 97.5% of the nondefeased loans in the pool, of
which the majority reflected year-end 2013 data.

S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average debt service
coverage (DSC) of 1.46x and a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 85.4%
using a Standard & Poor's weighted average capitalization rate of
7.80%.  The DSC and LTV calculations exclude the two specially
serviced assets, eight defeased loans, and an additional loan that
is in the process of being defeased.  The top 10 loans have an
aggregate outstanding pool trust balance of $687.7 million
(48.7%).  Using servicer-reported numbers, S&P calculated a
Standard & Poor's weighted average DSC and LTV of 1.36x and 02.0%,
respectively, for the top 10 loans.

To date, the transaction has experienced $64.7 million in
principal losses, or 3.5% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 4.2% 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 of
the two specially serviced assets.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Sept. 11, 2014, trustee remittance report, two assets
($30.7 million, 2.2%) in the pool were with the special servicer,
C-III Asset Management LLC (C-III). Details of the two specially
serviced assets are:

   -- The Athens Promenade loan ($22.5 million, 1.6%) is the
      larger of the specially serviced assets and has a total
      reported exposure of $23.2 million.  The loan is secured by
      a 144,147-sq.-ft. retail property in Athens, Ga.  The loan
      was transferred to C-III on Dec. 11, 2013, due to payment
      default resulting from declining occupancy and cash flows.
      C-III has stated that it is evaluating all resolution
      options, including foreclosure.  The reported DSC and
      occupancy as of year-end 2013 were 1.00x and 67%,
      respectively.  There is a $10.3 million appraisal reduction
      amount (ARA) in place against the asset.  S&P expects a
      moderate loss upon this loan's eventual resolution.

   -- The Easten Shopping Center REO asset ($8.2 million, 0.6%)
      has a total reported exposure of $10.0 million.  The asset
      is a 125,555-sq.-ft. retail property in Moorhead, Minn.  The
      asset was transferred to C-III on Dec. 10, 2010.  There is a
      $1.5 million ARA in place against the asset.  S&P expects a
      minimal loss upon this asset's eventual resolution.

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.

RATING RAISED

Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-PWR11
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-PWR11

          Rating      Rating
Class     To          From         Credit enhancement (%)
A-M       AA (sf)     A (sf)                        21.76

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-PWR11
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-PWR11

Class     Rating      Credit enhancement (%)
A-4       AAA (sf)                     34.93
A-1A      AAA (sf)                     34.93
A-J       BB (sf)                      11.39
B         B+ (sf)                       8.75
C         B (sf)                        7.11
D         B- (sf)                       5.13
E         B- (sf)                       3.81
F         CCC (sf)                      2.33
G         CCC- (sf)                     1.02
X         AAA (sf)                       N/A

RATING WITHDRAWN

Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-PWR11
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-PWR11

              Rating
Class     To          From
A-AB      NR          AAA (sf)

N/A--Not applicable.
NR--Not rated.


BEAR STEARNS 2006-PWR14: S&P Affirms CCC Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on 12
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Bear
Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-PWR14, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.

The affirmations on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates follow S&P's 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 reflect S&P's expectation that the available
credit enhancement for these classes will be within its estimate
of the necessary credit enhancement required for the current
ratings.

S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class X-1 and X-W
interest-only (IO) certificates, based on its criteria for rating
IO securities.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 11, 2014, trustee remittance report, the
collateral pool balance was $1.87 billion, which is 75.7% of the
pool balance at issuance.  The pool currently includes 197 loans
(reflecting crossed loans) and two real estate-owned (REO) assets,
down from 250 loans at issuance.  Six loans and two REO assets
totaling $101.5 million (5.4% of the current pool) are with the
special servicer, three ($11.8 million, 0.6%) are defeased, and 68
($707.0 million, 37.8%) are on the master servicer's watchlist.
The master servicer, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., reported financial
information for 94.5% of the nondefeased loans in the pool, a
majority of which reflected year-end 2013 data.

S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average debt service
coverage (DSC) of 1.34x and loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 80.1%
using a Standard & Poor's weighted average capitalization rate of
7.82%.  The DSC and LTV calculations exclude the eight specially
serviced assets, three defeased loans, one subordinate B hope note
($9.7 million, 0.5%) and two loans that S&P deemed credit impaired
($13.1 million, 0.7%).  The top 10 loans have a $598.5 million
(32.1%) aggregate outstanding pool trust balance.  Using servicer-
reported numbers, S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted
average DSC and LTV of 1.34x and 79.4%, respectively, for nine of
the top 10 loans.  The remaining loan is specially serviced and
discussed.

To date, the transaction has experienced $109.0 million in
principal losses, or 4.4% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 6.0% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses S&P expects upon the eight specially
serviced assets' and two credit-impaired loans' eventual
resolution.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Sept. 11, 2014, trustee remittance report, there were
eight assets in the pool with the special servicer, C-III Asset
Management LLC (C-III).  Four assets ($20.1 million, 1.1%) have
appraisal reduction amounts totaling $5.9 million.  In addition,
S&P deemed two loans to be credit impaired because both loans have
reported two-months-delinquent payment statuses.  Details of the
two largest specially serviced assets, one of which is a top 10
loan, and the two credit-impaired loans are:

The Philips at Sunrise Shopping Center loan ($65.0 million, 3.5%),
the largest with the special servicer, has $67.5 million in total
reported exposure.  The loan is secured by a 414,082-sq.-ft.
retail property in Massapequa, N.Y.  The loan was transferred to
C-III on Nov. 22, 2011, because it had low DSC and occupancy
issues. C-III indicated that it is currently reviewing third-party
reports and evaluating its liquidation strategies.  S&P expects a
moderate loss upon its eventual resolution.

The Kings Highway Commerce Center loan ($10.3 million, 0.6%) has
$10.6 million in total reported exposure and is secured by a
153,664-sq.-ft. retail property in Maple Shade, N.J.  The loan,
which is the second-largest with C-III, was transferred to C-III
on July 8, 2014, because of a low reported DSC.  The reported DSC
and occupancy as of year-end 2013 were 0.80x and 76.0%,
respectively. C-III indicated that it is currently evaluating its
liquidation strategies.  S&P expects a moderate loss upon the
loan's eventual resolution.

The six remaining assets with the special servicer have individual
balances that represent less than 0.5% of the total pool trust
balance.

In addition, S&P considered the Lakeview Village ($11.1 million,
0.6%) and Adams Office Building ($2.0 million, 0.1%) loans to be
credit impaired because they reported two-month-delinquent payment
statuses and low DSC.  The Lakeview Village loan, secured by a
65,900-sq,-ft. retail property in D'Iberville, Miss., had a
reported 0.82x DSC for year-end 2013. The Adams Office Building
loan, secured by a 21,125-sq.-ft. office building in Fort Worth,
Texas, had a reported 0.98x DSC for year-end 2013.  Given their
reported payment statuses and low DSC, we considered both loans to
have increased risk of default and loss.

S&P estimated losses for the eight specially serviced assets and
two credit-impaired loans, deriving a 33.7% weighted average loss
severity.

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 AFFIRMED

Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-PWR14
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

Class     Rating    Credit enhancement (%)
A-3       AAA (sf)                   33.81
A-AB      AAA (sf)                   33.81
A-4       AAA (sf)                   33.81
A-1A      AAA (sf)                   33.81
A-M       A+ (sf)                    20.59
A-J       BB (sf)                     8.70
B         B (sf)                      6.22
C         B- (sf)                     4.90
D         B- (sf)                     2.92
E         CCC (sf)                    1.76
X-1       AAA (sf)                     N/A
X-W       AAA (sf)                     N/A

N/A--Not applicable.


BEAR STEARNS 2007-PWR17: Fitch Cuts Cl. A-J Certs Rating to CCC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded three classes and affirmed 19 classes
of Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, series 2007-
PWR17 (BSCMS 2007-PWR17) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The downgrades are due to the increased probability of loss, and
realized losses on the disposed specially serviced assets being
slightly higher than modeled at the last rating action. The
affirmations to the senior classes are based on sufficient credit
enhancement relative to their ratings; the outlooks on the A-M
classes are revised to negative due to the uncertainty on the
recoveries of several of the larger Loans of Concern.

Fitch modeled losses of 7.6% of the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 12.2%, including $215.2
million (6.6% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date. Fitch has designated 66 loans (35.3%) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes 13 specially serviced assets (6.8%).

As of the September 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 26.3% to $2.4 billion from
$3.26 billion at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, three loans
(1.6% of the pool) are defeased. Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes E through S.

The largest contributor to expected losses remains the
DRA/Colonial Office Portfolio loan (8.3% of the pool). The
interest-only loan is secured by 17 office and retail buildings
that comprise approximately 4.5 million square feet (sf) and are
located across five metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs),
primarily in the south and southeast. The loan has a total balance
of $599.4 million and is split into three equal pari passu notes.
The loan transferred to special servicing in August 2012 for
imminent default due to declining occupancy with significant
rollover. The loan was modified in January 2013 and returned to
the master servicer in May 2013. The loan modification included an
increased interest-only period for 24 months with a new maturity
of July 2016. While with the special servicer, two properties were
released and sold which paid down this piece of the loan by $35.4
million. The property continues to struggle as a result of
significant concessions given to rolling tenants over the last
several years. The servicer-reported net operating income (NOI)
debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) was 1.18x as of year-end 2013,
and the occupancy was 84.5% as of second-quarter 2014.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a 136,206 sf
shopping center located in Tyngsboro, MA, approximately 40 miles
northwest of Boston on the border of New Hampshire (0.7%). The
loan transferred to special servicing in March 2014 following the
loss of its largest tenant, TJ Maxx (18.3% of NRA), which vacated
in May 2013. In addition to the largest tenant, the property
suffered further from the departure of Trader Joe's and several
other small tenants. Additionally, there are four more tenants
(27.6% of NRA) that have lease expirations in 2015. As of
September 2014, the property was 53.4% occupied as reported by the
special servicer.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a 260-key
full-service hotel located in downtown Atlanta, GA (0.9%). The
loan transferred to special servicing in August 2014 due to
maturity default; however it has continued to make monthly
payments. The property has suffered from poor performance since it
started amortizing in 2010 and has had insufficient cash flow to
cover both operating expenses and debt service payments. The
special servicer reports they are working on a modification with
the borrower while pursuing all rights and remedies of the trust.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Rating Outlooks on classes A-3 through A-1A remain Stable due to
increasing credit enhancement and continued paydown. Rating
Outlooks on class A-M and A-MFL are Negative due to the
uncertainty of recoveries on several specially serviced loans.

Fitch downgrades the following classes and assigns Recovery
Estimates (REs) as indicated:

-- $269 million class A-J to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 90%;
-- $28.5 million class B to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $44.8 million class C to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf'; RE 0%.

Fitch affirms the following classes and assigns Rating Outlook and
REs as indicated:

-- $137.2 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $77 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1.2 billion class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $246.6 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $231 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook to Negative from
   Stable;
-- $95 million class A-MFL at 'AAAsf'; Outlook to Negative from
   Stable;
-- $24.5 million class D at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $20.4 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $28.5 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $21.2 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%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.


BLACKROCK SENIOR: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Class D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-2b, A-3, B, and C notes from BlackRock Senior Income Series
V Ltd. and removed them from CreditWatch, where they were placed
with positive implications on Aug. 29, 2014.  At the same time,
S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A-2a and D notes and removed
the rating on the class D notes from CreditWatch, where it was
also placed with positive implications on Aug. 29, 2014.
BlackRock Senior Income Series V Ltd. is a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) transaction managed by BlackRock Financial
Management Inc. that closed in July 2007.

The BlackRock Senior Income Series V Ltd. portfolio primarily
consists of senior secured leverage loans denominated in British
pounds sterling, U.S. dollars, and euros.  The class A-1
multicurrency revolver can be issued in any one of those three
currencies.

"Since we took our June 2013 rating actions and the transaction's
reinvestment period ended in August 2013, the British pound
sterling portion of the class A-1 note balance has been reduced to
oe1.97 million, the U.S. dollar portion has been reduced to $34.6
million, and the euro portion has been reduced to zero as of the
Aug. 29, 2014, trustee report.  In addition, the class A-2a notes
have paid down $79.4 million and the class A-3 notes have paid
down $43.7 million over the same period.  Though all the class A
notes are pari passu, the deal is structured so that the class A-
2a notes receive paydowns before the class A-2b notes and hence
can be paid down in full before the class A-1, A-2b, and A-3
notes," S&P said.

The upgrades and affirmation of the class A-2a notes reflect the
paydowns to the class A-1, A-2a, and A-3 notes, which helped
create additional support for the subordinate notes.  The
improvements are also evident in the increased class A/B, C, and D
overcollateralization ratios.

As of the Aug. 29, 2014, trustee report, BlackRock Senior Income
Series V Ltd.has roughly $25.6 million in loans maturing after the
transaction's Aug. 2019 legal final maturity.  Exposure to these
long-dated assets subjects the transaction to potential market
value risk, as the manager may have to liquidate these securities
when the transaction matures in order to pay down the notes on
their final maturity date.  S&P's ratings on the class C notes and
D notes reflect this potentially negative risk.

The affirmation of the class D notes reflects S&P's opinion that
sufficient credit support is available to the notes at the current
rating level.

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

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

BlackRock Senior Income Series V Ltd.

                                  Cash flow    Cash flow
             Previous             implied      cushion   Final
             rating               rating       (i)       rating
A-1          AA+(sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)     16.33%    AAA (sf)
A-2a         AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)     30.66%    AAA (sf)
A-2b         AA+(sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)     16.33%    AAA (sf)
A-3          AA+(sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)     16.33%    AAA (sf)
B            AA (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)     5.57%     AAA (sf)
C            A (sf)/Watch Pos     AA+ (sf)     0.21%     AA- (sf)
D            BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BB+ (sf)     3.25%     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.

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    Corr.       Corr.
         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     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2b     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-3      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B        AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C        AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)    AA- (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AA- (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-2a       AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)
A-2b       AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)
A-3        AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)
B          AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)        AAA (sf)
C          AA+ (sf)     AA (sf)       A- (sf)         AA- (sf)
D          BB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)      B- (sf)         BB+ (sf)

RATINGS LIST

BlackRock Senior Income Series V Ltd.

                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To         From
A-1     09253DAA4    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2a    09253DAB2    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2b    09253DAC0    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3     09253DAD8    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B       09253DAE6    AAA (sf)   AA (sf)/Watch Pos
C       09253DAF3    AA- (sf)   A (sf)/Watch Pos
D       09253DAG1    BB+ (sf)   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos


BLUEMOUNTAIN CLO: Moody's Lowers Rating on $27.8MM D Notes to Ba1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the rating on the
following notes issued by BlueMountain CLO Ltd.:

  $27,800,000 Class D Fourth Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
  Notes due November 15, 2017, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously
  on May 29, 2014 Affirmed Baa3 (sf)

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

  $303,100,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Funded
  Notes due November 15, 2017 (current balance $8,963,030),
  Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 29, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $57,900,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
  November 15, 2017, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 29,
  2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $23,200,000 Class B Second Priority Floating Rate Notes due
  November 15, 2017, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 29,
  2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $23,000,000 Class C Third Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
  Notes due November 15, 2017, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on
  May 29, 2014 Affirmed Aa2 (sf)

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

Ratings Rationale

The rating downgrade on the Class D notes is due primarily to the
deal's growing exposure to securities that mature after the
maturity of the CLO (long-dated assets) since the last rating
action in May 2014. Based on Moody's calculations, long-dated
assets currently make up approximately 64.8% of the collateral par
or $114.5 million, up from 46.2% of par or $90.2 million in May
2014. These investments could expose the notes to market risk in
the event of liquidation when the notes mature. Despite the
increase in the trustee reported Class D overcollateralization
(OC) ratio owing to deleveraging since May 2014, Moody's
downgraded the rating on the Class D notes owing to market risk
stemming from the exposure to these long-dated assets.

The Class A-1 notes have been paid down by approximately 3.7% or
$11.2 million since May 2014. Based on the trustee's September
2014 report, the Class A/B, Class C, and Class D OC ratios are
reported at 196.21%, 156.30%, and 125.45%, versus May 2014 levels
of 176.76%, 146.82%, and 121.88%, 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. 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. The deal's
increased exposure owing to amendments to loan agreements
extending maturities continues. In light of the deal's sizable
exposure to long-dated assets, which increases its sensitivity to
the liquidation assumptions in the rating analysis, Moody's ran
scenarios using a range of liquidation value assumptions. However,
actual long-dated asset exposures and prevailing market prices and
conditions at the CLO's maturity will drive the deal's actual
losses, if any, from long-dated assets.

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% (2285)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: 0

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3427)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -2

Class D: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in 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 $176.7 million, no defaulted
par, a weighted average default probability of 15.96% (implying a
WARF of 2856), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of
51.46%, a diversity score of 25 and a weighted average spread of
3.35%.

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.


CALCULUS CMBS: Moody's Affirms 'Ca' Rating on 5 Note Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the
following trust units issued by Calculus CMBS Resecuritization
Trust:

Series 2006-1 Trust Units, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Nov 12,
2013 Affirmed Ca (sf)

Series 2006-2 Trust Units, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Nov 12,
2013 Affirmed Ca (sf)

Series 2006-3 Trust Units, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Nov 12,
2013 Affirmed Ca (sf)

Series 2006-4 Trust Units, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Nov 12,
2013 Affirmed Ca (sf)

Series 2006-6 Trust Units, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Nov 12,
2013 Affirmed Ca (sf)

Credit Default Swap Class A, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov
12, 2013 Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has affirmed the ratings 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 (CRE CDO
Synthetic) transactions.

Calculus CMBS Resecuritization Trust is a static synthetic credit
linked notes transaction backed by a portfolio of credit default
swaps referencing 100% commercial mortgage backed securities
(CMBS). All of the CMBS reference obligations were securitized in
2004 (2.5%), 2005 (77.7%), and 2006 (19.8%). Currently, 77% of the
reference obligations are publicly rated by Moody's.

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 968, compared to 692 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated reference obligations and the assessments of the
non-Moody's rated reference obligations follow: Aaa-Aa3 and 34.3%
compared to 22.0% at last review; A1-A3 and 28.0%, the same as
last review; Baa1-Baa3 and 9.8% compared to 22.0% at last review;
Ba1-Ba3 and 13.2% compared to 15.5% at last review; B1-B3 and 7.2%
compared to 10.0% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 7.5% compared
to 2.5%.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.0 years, compared to 1.9 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying reference obligations.

Moody's modeled a variable WARR with a mean of 14.1%, compared to
a mean of 38.4% at last review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 8.3%, compared to 21.5% 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 ratings of the reference obligations and credit
estimates. Notching the reference obligations down by -1 notch
would result in no rating movement on the rated notes (e.g. one
notch downward implies Baa3 to Ba1). Notching the reference
obligations upward by +1 notch would result in an average modeled
rating movement of zero to one notch upward (e.g. one notch upward
implies Baa3 to Baa2).

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.


CANYON CAPITAL 2014-2: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Canyon Capital CLO 2014-2 Ltd./Canyon Capital CLO 2014-
2 LLC's $368.80 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 Oct. 15,
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
      (not counting the excess spread), and cash flow structure,
      which can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation (CDO) criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

   -- The diversified collateral portfolio, which primarily
      comprises broadly syndicated, speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- S&P's projections regarding the timely interest and ultimate
      principal payments on the 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 0.2316%-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 diversion test, a failure of
      which will lead to the reclassification of excess interest
      proceeds that are available before paying uncapped
      administrative expenses, incentive management fees, and
      subordinated note payments into principal proceeds for
      additional collateral asset purchases during the
      reinvestment period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Canyon Capital CLO 2014-2 Ltd./Canyon Capital CLO 2014-2 LLC

Class                 Rating           Amount (mil. $)
A                     AAA (sf)                  251.20
B                     AA (sf)                    48.40
C (deferrable)        A (sf)                     32.00
D (deferrable)        BBB (sf)                   19.60
E (deferrable)        BB (sf)                    17.60
Subordinated notes    NR                         39.20

NR--Not rated.


CD 2005-CD1: Moody's Lowers Rating on Class H Certificates to C
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on two classes,
affirmed the ratings on 12 classes and downgraded the rating on
one class in CD 2005-CD1 Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-CD1 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-J, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed
A3 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

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

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

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

Cl. OCS, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on two P&I classes were upgraded based primarily on an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization; an increase in defeasance; and Moody's expectation
of additional increases in credit support resulting from the
payoff of loans approaching maturity that are well positioned for
refinance. The deal has paid down 9% since Moody's last review and
defeasance has increased to 10% of the current pooled balance.

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

The rating on one IO class was affirmed due to the credit
performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of its
referenced classes. The rating on one non-pooled or rake bond,
Class OCS, was affirmed due to the stable performance of the
underlying collateral: the One Court Square -- Citibank Loan.

The rating on one P&I class was 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 6.7% of the
current balance, compared to 6.3% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 7.3% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 7.0% 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 principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in
April 2005.

On October 9, 2014, Moody's issued a "Request for Comment" asking
for market feedback on proposed changes to the methodology it uses
to rate conduit and fusion CMBS transactions. If Moody's adopts
the new methodology as proposed, the changes could affect the
ratings of CD 2005-CD1.

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 31, as compared to 37 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the September 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 27% to $2.83
billion from $3.88 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 184 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 10% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting
38% of the pool. Three loans, constituting 14% of the pool, have
investment-grade Structured Credit Assessments. Twenty-seven
loans, constituting 10% of the pool, have defeased and are secured
by US government securities.

Forty-two 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-three loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting
in an aggregate realized loss of $95 million (for an average loss
severity of 28%). Thirteen loans, constituting 5% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Goodwin Square Loan (for $33 million -- 1% of the
pool), which is secured by a 331,000 square foot office property
with an attached 124-room hotel located in downtown Hartford,
Connecticut. The office portion of the property was 50% leased as
of July 2014, as compared to 51% leased as of May 2013. The hotel
portion has been closed for approximately six years. The property
became real estate owned (REO) in July 2012. The servicer will
continue to attempt to stabilize the office portion before
marketing the collateral for sale.

The remaining 12 specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $102 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (68% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 14 poorly
performing loans, constituting 7% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $32 million (a 15% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 96% of the
pool, and full year 2013 operating results for 98%. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 93%, compared to 89% 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 15% 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 1.45X and 1.10X,
respectively, compared to 1.54X and 1.14X 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 One
Court Square Loan ($290 million -- 10% of the pool), which is
secured by a 1.4 million SF office tower located in Long Island
City, New York. The property is also encumbered by a $25 million
B-note, which is held inside the trust and secures the non-pooled
rake bond, Class OCS. The building is fully leased to Citibank,
N.A. (Long-term deposit rating A2, outlook stable) through May 1,
2020. The loan maturity is co-terminus with Citibank's lease, but
the loan has an anticipated repayment date of September 1, 2015.
Moody's value is based on a lit/dark analysis. Moody's Structured
Credit Assessment and stressed DSCR are baa2 (sca.pd) and 1.10X,
respectively, compared to baa2 (sca.pd) and 1.09X at the last
review.

The top three conduit loans represent 15% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Yahoo! Center Loan formerly known as the
Colorado Center ($250 million -- 9% of the pool), which is secured
by a six-building 1.1 million SF office complex located in Santa
Monica, California. The property was 95% leased as of June 2014 as
compared to 96% leased as of June 2013. Tenant Riot Games has
announced they will vacate at lease expiration in 2015 which would
decrease occpuancy to 81%. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 80%
and 1.14X, respectively, compared to 77% and 1.20X at the last
review.

The second largest loan is the TPMC Portfolio Loan ($97 million --
3% of the pool), which is secured by two 18-story office towers, a
2,200-space parking facility and theatre and retail space located
in Houston, Texas. Occupancy for the office component was 93% as
of March 2014, the same as in September 2013. The property is home
to the popular Edwards Grand Palace Stadium 24 movie complex.
Moody's stressed the collateral's net cash flow due to significant
lease expirations around the loan's May 2015 loan maturity.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 117% and 0.88X, respectively,
compared to 89% and 1.15X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Private Mini Self Storage Portfolio
Loan ($82 million -- 3% of the pool), which is secured by 22 self-
storage properties totaling approximately 13,500 units across six
states. Property performance has been stable. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 82% and 1.22X, respectively, compared to 83% and
1.20X at the last review.


CFCRE COMMERCIAL 2011-C2: Moody's Affirms B2 on Cl. G Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 13 classes
in CFCRE Commercial Mortgage Trust, Series 2011-C2 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Baa1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Nov 6, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.7% of the
current balance, the same as at Moody's last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating 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 20, the same as at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the September 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 3.6% to $747
million from $774 million at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by 51 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 13% of the pool, with the top ten loans representing 58% of
the pool. One loan, constituting 1% of the pool, has defeased and
is secured by US government securities.

Three loans, representing 6% 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.

There have been no realized losses to the pool to date. Currently
two loans, representing 2% of the pool, are in special servicing.
The largest specially serviced loan is secured by a 384-unit
apartment complex located in Blacklick, Ohio. The loan was
transferred to the special servicer on July 16th, 2012 due to the
guarantor being investigated by the SEC for an alleged Ponzi
scheme.The other specially serviced loan is secured by a mixed-use
four-story building consisting of a total of 24 multifamily units
and 16,007 square foot (SF) of ground floor retail space. Moody's
estimates an aggregate $2.6 million loss for these two specially
serviced loans (17% expected loss on average).

Moody's did not identify any troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 94% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 88% compared to 90%
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 12.6% 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 1.51X and 1.20X,
respectively, compared to 1.49X and 1.18X 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 31% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the RiverTown Crossings Mall Loan ($96 million --
12.8% of the pool), which is a pari-passu interest in a $149
million first mortgage loan. The loan is secured by a 635,769 SF
portion of a 1.2 million SF regional mall located in Grandville,
Michigan. The property's performance has been improving steadily
since securitization. As of June 2014 the in-line occupancy was
93%, essentially the same as of December 2013 and compared to 90%
at securitization. The loan sponsor is an affiliate of General
Growth Properties(GGP). Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 77% and
1.22X, respectively, compared to 81% and 1.17X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Plaza Mexico Loan ($79 million --
10.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 394,772 SF retail
community center located in Lynwood, California. The anchors are
Food 4 Less, La Curacao and Rite Aid. As of June 2014, the
property was 93% leased, essentially the same as at last review.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 91% and 1.04X, respectively,
compared to 88% and 1.07X at last review.

The third largest loan is the GSA -- FBI Portfolio Loan ($58.5
million -- 7.8% of the pool), which is secured by two single-
tenant office buildings that are 100% leased to the General
Services Administration. The properties are located in Las Vegas,
Nevada and Louisville, Kentucky and are occupied by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Both properties were built to suit
for the FBI. The two tenant leases are scheduled to expire beyond
the loan term, with the earliest expiration occurring in 2021.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 103% and 0.94X, respectively,
essentially the same as at last review.


CIFC FUNDING 2006-II: Moody's Hikes Rating on B-2L Notes to 'Ba1'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by CIFC Funding 2006-II, Ltd :

$36,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due March 1, 2021,
Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on February 6, 2014 Upgraded to
Aa3 (sf)

$23,000,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due March 1, 2021,
Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on February 6, 2014 Upgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

$25,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due March 1, 2021,
(current outstanding balance of $24,074,261), Upgraded to Ba1
(sf); previously on February 6, 2014 Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

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

$65,000,000 Class A-1L Floating Rate Notes Due March 1, 2021
(current outstanding balance of $22,297,971), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on February 6, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$100,000,000 Class A-1LAr Variable Funding Notes Due March 1,
2021 (current outstanding balance of $27,005,080), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on February 6, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$260,000,000 Class A-1LAt Floating Rate Notes Due March 1, 2021
(current outstanding balance of $70,213,208), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on February 6, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$40,000,000 Class A-1LB Floating Rate Notes Due March 1, 2021,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on February 6, 2014 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

$35,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due March 1, 2021,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on February 6, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa
(sf)

CIFC Funding 2006-II, Ltd., issued in December 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of
senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended
in March 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 February 2014. The Class A-1L,
Class A-1LAr and Class A-1LAt notes have collectively been paid
down by approximately 55.3% or $147.6 million since that time.
Based on the trustee's September 2014 report, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Senior Class A, Class A,
Class B-1L, and Class B2L notes are reported at 158.4%, 133.7%,
121.6% and 111.0%, respectively, versus February 2014 levels of
133.0%, 120.3%, 113.4% and 107.0%, respectively.

Additionally, the deal has benefited from an improvement in the
credit quality of the portfolio since February 2014. Based on the
trustee's September 2014 report, the weighted average rating
factor (WARF) was reported at 2564 compared to 2667 in February
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) 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 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.

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% (2239)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LAr: 0

Class A-1LAt: 0

Class A-1LB: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: +3

Class B-2L: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3359)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LAr: 0

Class A-1LAt: 0

Class A-1LB: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: -1

Class B-1L: -2

Class B-2L: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in 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 $306.9 million, defaulted
par of $2.3 million, a weighted average default probability of
18.65% (implying a WARF of 2799), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 50.82%, a diversity score of 59 and a weighted
average spread of 3.24%.

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.


CIFC FUNDING 2007-I: S&P Raises Rating on Class B-2L Notes to BB+
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1LB, A-1L, A-2L, A-3L, B-1L, and B-2L notes from CIFC Funding
2007-I Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed
by Commercial Industrial Finance Corp., and removed the ratings on
classes A-1LB, A-1L, A-2L, A-3L, and B-1L from CreditWatch, where
they were placed with positive implications on Aug. 29, 2014.  In
addition, S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class A-1LAr
and A-1LAt notes.

The upgrades reflect the aggregated $90.83 million in paydowns to
the class A-1L, A-1LAr, and A-1LAt notes resulting from principal
amortization since S&P's May 2012 rating actions, which were based
on the March 21, 2012, trustee report.  The affirmations reflect
S&P's belief that the credit support available is commensurate
with the current rating levels.

The trustee reported the following overcollateralization (O/C)
ratios in the Aug. 2014 monthly report, compared with the March
2012 report:

   -- The senior class A (excluding the class A-3L outstanding
      balance) O/C ratio was 137.77%, up from 125.66%.

   -- The class A (including all class A notes) O/C ratio was
      123.55%, up from 116.42%.

   -- The class B-1L O/C ratio was 115.45%, up from 110.88%.

   -- The class B-2L O/C ratio was 108.58%, up from 105.47%.

The underlying portfolio's credit quality improved since S&P's May
2012 rating actions.  According to the August 2014 trustee report,
assets rated 'CCC+' or lower accounted for $0.23 million of the
portfolio, compared with the $3.62 million reported in March 2012.
The transaction held no defaulted assets as of August 2014, though
it held $2.07 million when S&P took its previous rating actions.

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

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

CIFC Funding 2007-I Ltd.

                           Cash flow
       Previous            implied     Cash flow     Final
Class  rating              rating      cushion(i)    rating
A-1L   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos  AAA (sf)        14.58%    AAA (sf)
A-1LAt AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)        28.64%    AAA (sf)
A-1LAr AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)        28.64%    AAA (sf)
A-1LB  AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos  AAA (sf)        14.58%    AAA (sf)
A-2L   AA (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)         4.06%    AAA (sf)
A-3L   A (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)         2.08%    AA+ (sf)
B-1L   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos  A (sf)           0.61%    A- (sf)
B-2L   BB (sf)             BB+ (sf)         0.50%    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.

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-1L    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-1LAt  AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-1LAr  AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-1LB   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2L    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-3L    AA+ (sf)   AA- (sf)   AA (sf)     AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
B-1L    A (sf)     BBB+ (sf)  A- (sf)     A+ (sf)     A- (sf)
B-2L    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-1L    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-1LAt  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-1LAr  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-1LB   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2L    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-3L    AA+ (sf)     AA (sf)       A+ (sf)       AA+ (sf)
B-1L    A (sf)       A- (sf)       BBB (sf)      A- (sf)
B-2L    BB+ (sf)     BB- (sf)      B+ (sf)       BB+ (sf)

RATING AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

CIFC Funding 2007-I Ltd.

Class          Rating
          To           From
A-1LAr    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-1LAt    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-1LB     AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-1L      AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2L      AAA (sf)     AA (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3L      AA+ (sf)     A (sf)/Watch Pos
B-1L      A- (sf)      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2L      BB+ (sf)     BB (sf)


CIT CLO I: S&P Withdraws BB+ Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on 49
classes from 15 cash flow (CF) collateralized loan obligation
(CLO) transactions, two classes from one CF collateralized debt
obligation (CDO) transaction backed primarily by residential
mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), one class from one CF CDO
transaction backed primarily by CLO tranches (CDO of CDO), one
class from one CF CDO backed by commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) and three classes from two principal-protected
notes (PPN).

The withdrawals follow the complete paydown of the notes as
reflected in the most recent trustee-issued note payment reports
for these transactions:

   -- Airlie CLO 2006-I Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in
      Sept. 2014

   -- AMMC CLO IV Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down,
      other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- ARES VIR CLO Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in Sept.
      2014

   -- Ashford CDO I Ltd. (CF CDO of CDO): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- Atrium IV (CF CLO): optional redemption in Sept. 2014

   -- Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2014-1 Ltd. (CF CLO):
      class X notes(i) paid down, other rated tranches still
      outstanding

   -- CIT CLO I Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in Sept. 2014

   -- ECP CLO 2008-1 Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in
      Sept. 2014

   -- Gemstone CDO Ltd. (CF CDO of RMBS): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- Hewett's Island CLO V Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche
      paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- Kingsland I Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down,
      other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- Latitude CLO II Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- MACH ONE 2005-CDN1, ULC (CF CDO of CMBS): senior-most
      tranche paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- MC Funding Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down,
      other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- Mountain Capital CLO IV Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption
      in Sept. 2014

   -- Mountain Capital CLO V Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche
      paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding

   -- Octagon Investment Partners VIII Ltd. (CF CLO): optional
      redemption in Sept. 2014

   -- Principal Protected I-Pre TSL III Trust (PPN): principal
      protected notes(ii) paid down, last rated tranche paid down

   -- Principal Protected I-Pre TSL III-A Trust (PPN): principal
      protected notes(ii) paid down, last rated tranche paid down

   -- Trimaran CLO V 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.  (ii)The "p" subscript
signifies that S&P's rating only addresses the payment of
principal at maturity or the transaction's early termination.  The
rating does not address the likelihood of interest payments on any
payment date.

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Airlie CLO 2006-I Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
C                   NR                  A+ (sf)
D                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)

AMMC CLO IV Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)

ARES VIR CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1-A               NR                  AAA (sf)
A-1-C               NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
C-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
C-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
D                   NR                  AA+ (sf)

Ashford CDO I Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-2L                NR                  AA- (sf)

Atrium IV
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1a                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-1b                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-3                 NR                  AAA (sf)
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
C                   NR                  AA+ (sf)
D-1                 NR                  A+ (sf)
D-2                 NR                  A+ (sf)


Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2014-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                   NR                  AAA (sf)

CIT CLO I Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A                   NR                  AAA (sf)
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
C                   NR                  AAA (sf)
D                   NR                  AA+ (sf)
E                   NR                  BB+ (sf)

ECP CLO 2008-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AA+ (sf)
B                   NR                  A+ (sf)

Gemstone CDO Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  A- (sf)
A-3                 NR                  A- (sf)

Hewett's Island CLO V Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-R                 NR                  AAA (sf)
A-T                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Kingsland I Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Latitude CLO II Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)

MACH ONE 2005-CDN1, ULC
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A                   NR                  BBB (sf)

MC Funding Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Mountain Capital CLO IV Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1L                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-1LB               NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2L                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-3L                NR                  AAA (sf)
B-1L                NR                  A+ (sf)
B-2L                NR                  BB+ (sf)

Mountain Capital CLO V Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1LA               NR                  AAA (sf)

Octagon Investment Partners VIII 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                  A+ (sf)
E                   NR                  BB+ (sf)

Principal Protected I-Pre TSL III Trust
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
Prin Prote          NR                  AA+p (sf)
Prin Prote          NR                  AA+p (sf)

Principal Protected I-Pre TSL III-A Trust
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
Princ Prot          NR                  AA+p (sf)

Trimaran CLO V Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A1                  NR                  AAA (sf)

NR--Not rated.


COLONY MULTIFAMILY 2014-1: Moody's Rates Class F Certs '(P)B3'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
seven classes of CMBS securities, issued by Colony Multifamily
Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2014-1.

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

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

Cl. B, Assigned (P) Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Assigned (P) A3 (sf)

Cl. D, Assigned (P) Baa3 (sf)

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

Cl. F, Assigned (P) B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The Certificates are collateralized by 301 fixed rate loans
secured by 307 properties. The ratings are based on the collateral
and the structure of the transaction.

The analyzed pool is comprised of seasoned small balance loans
secured by multifamily, manufactured housing, and mixed-use
(multifamily with ground floor retail) properties. The loans,
which were acquired by the Seller through multiple bulk purchases,
have a weighted average seasoning of 93 months. Loans representing
approximately 73.8% of the pool balance were acquired from Fannie
Mae "FNMA" and have an average seasoning of 87 months. The
remaining loans (26.2%) were originated by LaSalle Bank N.A and
represent a share of performing loans previously securitized in
the LASL 2005-MF1 transaction.

Approximately 265 loans, representing 69.8% of the pool balance,
had an original loan balance that was less than or equal to $2.0
million. Approximately 35 loans, representing 28.4% of the pool
balance, had an original loan balance that was between $2.0
million and $5.0 million. Only one loan, representing 1.8% of the
pool balance, had an original loan balance of $6.4 million.

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 1.20X is lower than the 2007
conduit/fusion transaction average of 1.31X. The Moody's Stressed
DSCR of 1.07X is greater than the 2007 conduit/fusion transaction
average of 0.92X.

Moody's Trust LTV ratio of 114.3% is higher than the 2007
conduit/fusion transaction average of 110.6%.

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 3.77, which is worse
than the indices calculated in most multi-borrower transactions
since 2009. The weighted average grade is indicative of the below
average market composition of the pool and the stability of the
cash flows underlying the assets.

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 (includes cross
collateralized and cross defaulted loans) Herfindahl Index is
198.3.

The transaction is significantly more diverse than most conduit
transactions rated since 2009.

With respect to property level diversity, the pool's property
level Herfindahl score is 202.2. The transaction's property
diversity profile is higher the indices calculated in most multi-
borrower transactions issued since 2009.

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

On October 9, 2014, Moody's issued a "Request for Comment" asking
for market feedback on proposed changes to the methodology it uses
to rate conduit and fusion CMBS transactions. If Moody's adopts
the new methodology as proposed, the changes could affect the
ratings of Colony Multifamily Mortgage Trust 2014-1.

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 ver1.1, 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%, 14%, and 23%, the model-indicated rating for the currently
rated Aaa class A would be Aa1, Aa2, and A1, 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.

Moody's Investors Service received and took into account one or
more third party due diligence reports on the underlying assets or
financial instruments in this transaction and the due diligence
reports had a neutral impact on the rating.

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.


COMM MORTGAGE 2014-CCRE20: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' on Class F Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on Deutsche Bank
Securities, Inc.'s COMM 2014-CCRE20 Commercial Mortgage Trust
Pass-Through Certificates.

Fitch expects to rate the transaction and assign Rating Outlooks
as follows:

-- $57,053,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $99,016,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $79,067,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $275,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $317,679,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $891,379,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $63,564,000b class A-M 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $57,652,000bc class B 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $199,563,000b class PEZ 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $78,347,000b class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $135,999,000ac class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $60,608,000c class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $60,608,000ac class X-C 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $26,608,000c class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.
-- $11,826,000c class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

(a) Notional amount and interest-only.
(b) Class A-M, B and C certificates may be exchanged for class PEZ
    certificates, and class PEZ certificates may be exchanged for
    class A-M, B, and C certificates.
(c) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of Oct. 15, 2014. Fitch does not expect to rate the
$26,608,000 interest-only class X-D, the $11,826,000 interest-only
class X-E, the $17,739,000 class G, the $17,739,000 interest-only
class X-F, the $38,434,627 class H or the $38,434,627 interest-
only class X-G certificates.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in
the trust, primary assets of which are 64 loans secured by 101
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
approximately $1.18 billion, as of the cutoff date. The loans were
contributed to the trust by Cantor Commercial Real Estate Lending,
L.P., German American Capital Corporation, UBS Real Estate
Securities, Inc., and Natixis Real Estate Capital LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 67% of the properties by
balance, cash flow analysis of 73.1%, and asset summary reviews on
73.1% of the pool.

Key Rating Drivers

High Fitch Leverage: This transaction has higher leverage than
other recent Fitch-rated fixed-rate deals. The pool's Fitch DSCR
of 1.19x matches the first-half 2014 average. However the pool's
Fitch LTV of 111.1% exceeds the first-half 2014 average of 105.6%.

High Hotel Concentration: Hotel properties comprise 27.9% of the
pool, which is greater than the 2013 and first-half 2014 averages
of 14.7% and 13.3%, respectively. Hotels have the highest
probability of default in Fitch's multiborrower model.

Limited Amortization: The pool is scheduled to amortize by 13.5%
of the initial pool balance prior to maturity. Eight loans
(32.1%), including four of the top 10 loans, are full-term
interest only, and 24 loans (23.15%) are partial interest only.
Fitch-rated transactions in the first quarter of 2014 had an
average full-term interest only percentage of 15.8% and a partial
interest only percentage of 37.6%. This transaction has a higher
amount of full-term interest only.

Rating Sensitivities

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 14.8% below
the most recent net operating income (NOI; for properties for
which a recent NOI was provided, excluding properties that were
stabilizing during this period). Unanticipated further declines in
property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and loss
severities on defaulted loans, and could result in potential
rating actions on the certificates. Fitch evaluated the
sensitivity of the ratings assigned to COMM 2014-CCRE20
certificates and found that the transaction displays slightly
above average sensitivity to further declines in NCF. In a
scenario in which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a
downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf' could
result. In a more severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further
30% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf'
certificates to 'BBBsf' could result. The presale report includes
a detailed explanation of additional stresses and sensitivities on
pages 83 - 84.

The master servicer will be Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, rated 'CMS1-'
by Fitch. The special servicer will be Torchlight Loan Services,
LLC, rated 'CSS2-'.


CREDIT SUISSE 2003-C5: S&P Raises Rating on Class J Notes to BB-
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on two
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.'s series
2003-C5, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS)
transaction.

The upgrades follow S&P's 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 loans in the pool, the transaction's
structure, and the liquidity available to the trust.

S&P raised its ratings on classes H and J to reflect its
expectation of the available credit enhancement for these classes,
which S&P believes is greater than its most recent necessary
credit enhancement estimate at the respective rating levels.  The
upgrades also follow S&P's views regarding the current and future
performance of the transaction's collateral, the available
liquidity support, and the trust balance's significant reduction.

While available credit enhancement levels suggest further positive
rating movements on classes H and J, S&P's analysis considered the
remaining loans' credit characteristics and performance and the
potentially reduced liquidity support for these classes from the
specially serviced Waynesburg Centre loan ($1.3 million, 6.2% of
the current pool balance)--which the master servicer, Midland Loan
Services (Midland), had deemed nonrecoverable--and the two loans
($1.5 million, 7.1%) on the master servicer's watchlist with
reported debt service coverage (DSC) below 1.00x.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 17, 2014, trustee remittance report, the
collateral pool balance was $21.6 million, which is 1.7% of the
pool balance at issuance.  The pool currently includes six loans,
down from 153 loans at issuance.  One of these loans is with the
special servicer and two are on the master servicer's watchlist.
Midland reported year-end 2013 financial information for 93.8% of
the loans in the pool.

S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average DSC of 1.55x
and loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 30.6% using a Standard & Poor's
weighted average capitalization rate of 7.60%.  The DSC, LTV
ratio, and capitalization rate calculations exclude the specially
serviced loan.

To date, the transaction has experienced $32.1 million in
principal losses, or 2.5% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 2.6% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses S&P expects upon the specially serviced
loan's eventual resolution.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Sept. 17, 2014, trustee remittance report, one loan in
the pool was with the special servicer, Torchlight Loan Services
LLC (Torchlight).  The Waynesburg Centre loan has $1.8 million in
total reported exposure and a nonperforming matured balloon
payment status.  The loan had a Sept. 11, 2013, anticipated
repayment date, reaches final maturity on Sept. 11, 2028, and is
secured by a 44,703 sq. ft. retail property in Waynesburg, Ohio.
The loan was transferred to Torchlight on Oct. 21, 2011, due to
imminent monetary default.  The reported occupancy as of year-end
2012 was 38.0% and the net cash flow at the property was not
sufficient to cover debt service.  Torchlight indicated that it is
currently evaluating various liquidation options.  S&P expects a
significant loss (60% or greater of the trust balance) upon this
loan's eventual resolution.

RATINGS RAISED

Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2003-C5

          Rating      Rating
Class     To          From     Credit enhancement (%)
H         A+ (sf)     B- (sf)                   92.56
J         BB- (sf)    CCC- (sf)                 48.70


CRUSADE ABS 2012-1: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed the ratings of 10 tranches from two
Crusade ABS Series transactions.  The transactions are a
securitisation of Australian auto receivables originated by
St.George Finance Limited. The rating actions are listed below:

Crusade ABS Series 2012-1 Trust:

AUD614.7m Class A affirmed at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
AUD49.3m Class B affirmed at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
AUD29.6m Class C affirmed at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
AUD19.7m Class D affirmed at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable; and
AUD18.1m Class E affirmed at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Crusade ABS Series 2013-1 Trust:

AUD840m Class A notes affirmed at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
AUD40m Class B notes affirmed at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
AUD30m Class C notes affirmed at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
AUD24m Class D notes affirmed at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
AUD14m Class E notes affirmed at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect Fitch's view that the transactions have
performed within expectations since closing and in line with its
expectations of Australia's economic conditions.  Total net losses
have been below Fitch's base cases to date and excess spread has
covered any losses incurred.  The ratings also reflect St. George
Finance Limited's underwriting and servicing capabilities, the
quality of the collateral, and performance of the underlying
loans, which have remained in line with the agency's expectations.

Crusade ABS Series 2013-1 Trust is currently within a 12 month
substitution period which ends on the payment date in Feb. 2015,
and to date, all principal proceeds have been allocated to
purchasing additional receivables.  Crusade ABS Series 2012-1
Trust's substitution period has ended and the transaction's pro-
rata triggers have been satisfied, with the transaction amortizing
pari passu across all notes, limiting the build-up of credit
enhancement.

At 30 September 2014, 30+ days arrears for both transactions were
above Fitch's Dinkum ABS index of 1.14%.

Crusade ABS Series 2013-1 Trust: 30+days and 90+ day delinquency
rates were 1.22% and 0.15% of the collateral pool, respectively.
Cumulative losses since closing have been low, totaling AUD1.35m
and all losses have been covered by recoveries or excess spread.

Crusade ABS Series 2012-1 Trust: 30+days and 90+ day delinquency
rates were 1.72% and 0.19% of the collateral pool, respectively.
Cumulative losses since closing have been low, totaling AUD7.98m
and all losses have been covered by recoveries or excess spread.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

An unexpected increase in delinquencies, defaults and losses would
be necessary before any negative rating action would be
considered.


CWABS INC: Moody's Reviews $1.9MM 2nd Lien RMBS for Downgrade
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has placed on review for downgrade the
ratings of five tranches from four CWABS transactions backed by
closed end second lien loans issued in 2002.

Complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2002-S1

Cl. M-2, Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade;
previously on Nov 21, 2013 Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2002-S2

Cl. M-2, Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade;
previously on Nov 21, 2013 Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2002-SC1

Cl. M-2, Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade;
previously on Nov 21, 2013 Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade;
previously on Nov 21, 2013 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2002-S3

Cl. M-1, Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade;
previously on Nov 21, 2013 Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has placed the ratings of five tranches issued from four
transactions on review for possible downgrade because of
outstanding realized losses and interest shortfalls on these
tranches. The realized losses and interest payment shortfalls
should have been reimbursed from the outstanding seller coverage
policy available for these transactions. Moody's expects to
resolve these actions once the trustee and servicer provide
further information on the outstanding realized losses and the
interest shortfalls.

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 5.9% in September 2014 from
7.2% in September 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.


EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2014-3: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to Exeter
Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-3's $500 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2014-3.

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

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The availability of approximately 48.88%, 39.92%, 32.03%,
      and 25.97% credit support for the class A, B, C, and D
      notes, respectively, based on stressed cash flow scenarios
      (including excess spread), which provide coverage of more
      than 2.55x, 2.10x, 1.60x, and 1.30x our 17.25%-18.25%
      expected cumulative net loss.

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

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, all else being equal, its ratings on the class A,
      B, and C notes will remain within one rating category of
      S&P's 'AA (sf)', 'A (sf)', and 'BBB (sf)' ratings,
      respectively, during the first year; and that S&P's ratings
      on the class D notes will remain within two rating
      categories of S&P's 'BB (sf)' rating 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 one-category downgrade within the
      first year for 'AA' rated securities and a two-category
      downgrade within the first year for 'A' through 'BB' rated
      securities under the moderate stress conditions.

   -- The collateral characteristics of the subprime automobile
      loans securitized in this transaction.

   -- The transaction's payment, credit enhancement, and legal
      structures.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-3

                                       Interest          Amount
Class     Rating      Type             rate            (Mil. $)
A         AA (sf)     Senior           Fixed             319.01
B         A (sf)      Subordinate      Fixed              76.82
C         BBB (sf)    Subordinate      Fixed              61.20
D         BB (sf)     Subordinate      Fixed              42.97


FORTRESS CREDIT V: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to
Fortress Credit Opportunities V CLO Ltd./Fortress Credit
Opportunities V CLO LLC's $555.5 million fixed- and floating-rate
notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of middle-market
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 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.

   -- 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
      0.2386%-12.8177%.

   -- 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 reinvestment overcollateralization test, a
      failure of which will lead to the reclassification of
      available excess interest as principal proceeds to purchase
      additional collateral assets during the reinvestment period,
      before paying uncapped administrative expenses and fees,
      subordinated hedge termination payments, and payments on the
      subordinated notes.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Fortress Credit Opportunities V CLO Ltd./
Fortress Credit Opportunities V CLO LLC

Class                    Rating                   Amount
                                                (mil. $)

A-1R(i)                  AAA (sf)              92.00(ii)
A-1T                     AAA (sf)                 104.50
A-1F                     AAA (sf)                 110.00
A-2                      AA+ (sf)                  21.00
B                        AA (sf)                   78.50
C (deferrable)           A (sf)                    57.00
D (deferrable)           BBB (sf)                  50.00
E (deferrable)           BBB- (sf)                 21.00
F (deferrable)           BB (sf)                   21.50
Subordinated notes       NR                       157.50

(i) The class A-1R notes are revolving notes that may be drawn and
    repaid throughout the commitment period.

(ii)The class A-1R notes are entitled to receive commitment fee on
    aggregate undrawn amount.


G-STAR 2003-3: Fitch Affirms 'CCsf' Rating on Class A-2 Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed five classes of G-Star 2003-3 Ltd./Corp
(G-Star 2003-3).

KEY RATING DRIVERS:

Since the last rating action in October 2013, approximately 2.89%
of the collateral has been downgraded and 11.82% has been
upgraded.  Per the Sept. remittance report, 76.3% of the portfolio
has a Fitch derived rating below investment grade and 62.9% has a
rating in the 'CCC' category and below, compared to 67.3% and
53.3%, respectively, at the last rating action.  Over this period,
the class A-1 note haves paid in full and the A-2 note received
paydown of $1.3 million for a total of $341.3 million in principal
paydowns since issuance.

This transaction was analyzed under the framework described in
Fitch's 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 enhancement for
the class A-2 note is consistent with the rating indicated below.

Fitch analyzed each class' sensitivity to the default of the
distressed assets ('CCC' and below).  Given the high probability
of default of the underlying assets and the expected limited
recovery prospects upon default, Fitch has affirmed the class A-2
note at 'CCsf' (indicating a probable default).  Similarly, Fitch
has affirmed classes B-1 and B-2 at 'Csf' (indicating an
inevitable default).

The rating of the preferred shares addresses the likelihood that
investors will receive the ultimate return of the aggregate
outstanding rated balance by the legal final maturity date.  The
assigned rating for the preferred shares indicates that default is
inevitable, as they are undercollateralized.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Additional negative migration and defaults beyond those projected
by SF PCM as well as increasing concentration of weaker credit
quality assets could lead to downgrades for the transaction.  G-
Star 2003-3 is a cash flow commercial real estate collateralized
debt obligation (CRE CDO) which closed on March 13, 2003.  As of
Sept. 2014, the collateral is composed of 70.2% residential
mortgage backed securities (RMBS), 27.4% commercial mortgage
backed securities (CMBS), and 2.4% real estate investment trusts
(REIT).

Fitch has affirmed these classes:

   -- $46,672,312 class A-2 notes at 'CCsf';
   -- $18,000,000 class A-3 notes at 'Csf';
   -- $6,705,473 class B-1 notes at 'Csf';
   -- $21,115,115 class B-2 notes at 'Csf';
   -- $24,000,000 preferred shares at 'Csf'.

The class A-1 notes have paid in full.


GE BUSINESS 2004-1: Moody's Lowers Rating on Class C Notes to B2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service downgraded and placed under review for
possible further downgrade three notes from GE Business Loan Trust
2004-1 and placed one note from GE Business Loan Trust 2003-1
under review for possible downgrade. The securitizations are
backed by commercial real estate loans.

The complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: GE Business Loan Trust 2003-1

Class A, Aa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade;
previously on Jul 26, 2012 Downgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Issuer: GE Business Loan Trust 2004-1

Cl. A, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf) and Placed Under Review for
Possible Downgrade; previously on Jul 26, 2012 Downgraded to Aa2
(sf)

Cl. B, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf) and Placed Under Review for Possible
Downgrade; previously on Jul 26, 2012 Downgraded to A3 (sf)

Cl. C, Downgraded to B2 (sf) and Placed Under Review for Possible
Downgrade; previously on Jul 26, 2012 Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The downgrades and the review for possible further downgrade for
the notes from the 2004-1 securitization were prompted by
delinquencies on two loans that together constitute over 14.3% of
the pool balance as of the September 2014 record date, uncertain
recoveries for at least one of these delinquent loans, and the
treatment of recoveries on loans that have been delinquent for
more than 12 months. The review for possible downgrade for Class A
of the 2003-1 securitization was prompted by the treatment of
recoveries on loans that have been delinquent for more than 24
months. The principal balance is set to zero once a loan is 12
months delinquent in series 2004-1 or 24 months delinquent in
series 2003-1. An equivalent amount is paid to the noteholders
from the reserve account subject to sufficient funds available.
However, principal and interest are still due by the mortgagees to
the Trust. Recoveries on these amounts written-off but still due
are being used to reimburse the letter of credit (LOC) provider,
which differs from Moody's interpretation of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreements that call for paying down the notes.

During the review period of series 2003-1 and 2004-1, Moody's will
evaluate if this practice is likely to continue, and may as a
result change assumptions for the treatment of such recovered
amounts; this may accordingly lead to further downgrades on these
deals. As of the September 2014 record date, amounts reimbursable
to the LOC provider were 32.8% of the outstanding 2003-1 pool
balance and 4.7% of the outstanding 2004-1 pool balance.

In the 2004-1 securitization, as of the September 2014 record
date, loans 60 days or more past due were approximately 14.3% of
the outstanding pool balance, consisting of two delinquent balloon
loans. The total outstanding principal balance of these loans will
be subject to a Loss Amount within three months if they do not
cure. The reserve account will then be drawn of an amount equal to
the Loss Amounts, subject to sufficient funding, in order to pay
the notes. The reserve account amounts to 11.2% of the outstanding
pool balance as of the September 2014 record date and is thus
expected to be fully drawn. The credit impact would be mitigated
if recoveries on these loans go to noteholders. Credit enhancement
available to the Class A, B, and C notes includes subordination
and a reserve account, and was, respectively, 23.2%, 16.2% and
11.2% of the outstanding pool balance as of the September 2014
record date.

Methodology

The principal methodology used in these rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating SME Balance Sheet Securitizations" published in
January 2014.

To determine the expected loss from balloon loans, Moody's assumed
that 10% of modified loans would default with a 60% severity and
80% to 100% of loans that are delinquent would default with a 45%
to 60% severity. For performing, non-modified balloon loans,
Moody's assumed a default rate similar to that of regular
amortizing loans (about 5%) until balloon maturity date. At
balloon maturity, we projected each loan's LTV based on future
amortization of the loan and forecasted property prices, and
predicted whether each loan would achieve refinancing and, if not,
what degree of loss it would experience. In estimating the values
for the properties, Moody's applied the change in the non-major
market Moody's/RCA Commercial Property Price Index (CPPI) from the
date of the most recent appraised value or broker's price opinion
to, and modeled that property prices would remain 2% to 3% lower
than current levels from 2015 to 2018 and stay at the same levels
going forward until 2021.

At balloon loan maturity, Moody's generally assumed that balloon
loans with less than 65% expected LTV will be able to refinance
and pay in full, and that a portion of balloon loans with higher
LTVs will default with severities corresponding to the expected
LTVs at balloon maturity. The resulting lifetime net expected
losses on the collateral pools, including losses from both the
fully amortizing and the balloon loans, are 3.1% and 8.4% as a
percent of the original pool balances for the 2003-1 and 2004-1,
respectively.

Moody's also considered the potential volatility associated with
the small number of loans in these securitizations to evaluate
protection against future collateral losses for a given rating.

The projected net losses or range of projected net losses were
evaluated against the available credit enhancement provided by
subordination, the reserve account, excess spread, and if
available, overcollateralization. Sufficiency of coverage was
considered in light of the credit quality of the collateral pool,
industry, geographical and loan concentrations, historical
variability of losses experienced by the issuer, and servicer
quality.

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

Up

Levels of credit protection that are higher than necessary to
protect investors against current expectations of loss could drive
the ratings up. Losses could decline below Moody's expectations as
a result of a decrease in seriously delinquent loans and lower
severities than expected on liquidated loans.

Down

In addition to factors considered above in the placement under
review for downgrade, levels of credit protection that are
insufficient to protect investors against current expectations of
loss could drive the rating down. Losses could rise above Moody's
expectations as a result of an increase in seriously delinquent
loans and higher severities than expected on liquidated loans.


GHISALLO LIMITED: Moody's Ups Rating on $400MM Cl. A Notes to Ba3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced the following rating action on
Ghisallo Limited:

U.S. $400,000,000 Class A Notes due 2019, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf);
previously on April 3, 2009 Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

This transaction is a corporate synthetic collateralized debt
obligation (CSO) referencing 30 portfolios of corporate senior
unsecured and subordinated bonds, originally rated in 2006.

Ratings Rationale

The rating action is due to the modification of the payment
provision in the Indenture that provides for final distribution of
principal proceeds to Noteholders. Prior to the modification, the
waterfall provided for the payment of interest, but not principal
proceeds at maturity.

The portfolio's ten-year weighted average rating factor (WARF)
ranges between 1225 and 2070 across the underlying portfolios,
with a weighted average WARF of 1748 across all portfolios.
Moody's rates approximately 51.6% of the reference credits
investment-grade, with 12.0% rated Caa (sf) or lower.

The average gap between MIRs and Moody's senior unsecured ratings
is currently -1.0 notches for over-concentrated sectors and 0.8
notches for non-over concentrated sectors. Currently, the over-
concentrated sectors are Banking, Finance, Insurance and Real
Estate comprising 18.6% of the portfolio, respectively.

The CSO has a remaining life of 3.2 years.

Based on the manager's update in September 2014, 25 credit events
have taken place across all portfolios. Furthermore, the portfolio
is exposed to Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., which
has not experienced a credit event, but has a corporate family
rating of Caa3 and with a negative outlook.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

These transactions are subject to a high level of uncertainty,
primarily because of 1) unexpected volatility in the credit and
macroeconomic environment; 2) divergence in the legal
interpretation of documentation by different transactional parties
because of embedded ambiguities; and 3) unexpected changes in the
portfolio composition as a result of the actions of the
transaction parties.

For CSOs, the performance of the credit default swaps can be
affected either positively or negatively by 1) variations over
time in default rates for instruments with a given rating; 2)
variations in recovery rates for instruments with particular
seniority/security characteristics; and 3) uncertainty about the
default and recovery correlations characteristics of the reference
pool. Given the tranched nature of CSO liabilities, rating
transitions in the reference pool can have leveraged rating
implications for the ratings of the CSO liabilities that could
lead to a high degree of rating volatility, which is likely to be
higher for the more junior or thinner liabilities.

In addition to the base case analysis described above, Moody's
also conducted sensitivity analyses, discussed below. Results are
in the form of the difference in the number of notches from the
base case, in which a higher number of notches corresponds to
lower expected losses, and vice-versa.

  -- Moody's ran a scenario in which it reduced the maturity of
the CSO by six months, keeping all other things equal. The result
of this run was one notch higher than the base case.

  -- Moody's conducted a sensitivity analysis in which the adverse
selection adjustment is removed and the default probabilities of
reference credits is adjusted by the equivalent of the average gap
between Moody's ratings and the corresponding MIRs. The result of
this run was two notches higher than in the base case.

  -- Moody's conducted a stress analysis in which it defaulted
all entities rated Caa or lower. The result was comparable to the
base case.

In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's models explicitly,
rating committees also consider qualitative factors in the rating
process. These qualitative factors include a transaction's
structural protections, recent deal performance in the current
market environment, the legal environment, specific documentation
features and the portfolio manager's track record. All information
available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts,
input 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.


GLENEAGLES CLO: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $49.5MM Cl. D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Gleneagles CLO, Ltd:

$51,000,000 Class C Floating Rate Senior Secured Deferrable
Interest Extendable Notes Due November 1, 2017, Upgraded to A3
(sf); previously on July 21, 2014 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

$5,000,000 Class 1 Extendable Combination Securities Due November
1, 2017 (current rated balance of $3,056,350), Upgraded to Aa3
(sf); previously on July 21, 2014 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

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

$620,000,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Senior Secured Extendable
Notes Due November 1, 2017 (current outstanding balance of
$88,018,208.08), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 21, 2014
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$28,000,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Senior Secured Extendable
Notes Due November 1, 2017, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July
21, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$60,500,000 Class B Floating Rate Senior Secured Extendable Notes
Due November 1, 2017, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 21,
2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$49,500,000 Class D Floating Rate Senior Secured Deferrable
Interest Extendable Notes Due November 1, 2017 (current
outstanding balance of $28,816,366), Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously
on July 21, 2014 Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Gleneagles CLO, Ltd, issued in October 2005, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans with material exposure to structured finance, long
dated and legacy defaulted assets. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in November 2012.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since the last rating action date in July
2014. The Class A-1 notes have been paid down by approximately 37%
or $52 million since the last rating action. Based on the
trustee's August 2014 report, the over-collateralization (OC)
ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, and Class D notes are reported
at 156.95%, 121.77%, and 108.08%, respectively, versus July 2014
levels of 143.98%, 117.71%, and 106.72%, respectively.

The portfolio includes a number of investments in securities that
mature after the notes do. Based on the trustee's August 2014
report, securities that mature after the notes do currently make
up approximately $44.9 million or 13.8% of the portfolio. These
investments, which include some mezzanine and junior CLO notes,
could expose the notes to market risk in the event of liquidation
when the notes mature. Additionally, Moody's also notes that
current portfolio has $57.5 million of defaulted assets, $38.4
million of which have been defaulted for more than 3 years.
Moody's affirmed the rating on the Class D notes (lowest priority
rated debt in the capital structure) owing to the market risk
stemming from the exposure to these long-dated assets as well as
the uncertainty in amount and timing of the recoveries from the
legacy defaulted assets.

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. The deal's
increased exposure owing to amendments to loan agreements
extending maturities continues. In light of the deal's sizable
exposure to long-dated assets, which increases its sensitivity to
the liquidation assumptions in the rating analysis, Moody's ran
scenarios using a range of liquidation value assumptions. However,
actual long-dated asset exposures and prevailing market prices and
conditions at the CLO's maturity will drive the deal's actual
losses, if any, from long-dated assets.

7) Exposure to credit estimates: The deal is exposed to 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. Moody's also ran stress scenarios to assess the
collateral pool's concentration risk because loans to obligors it
assesses with credit estimates constitute more than 3% of the
collateral pool.

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% (2269)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: +1

Class 1 Extendable Combination Securities: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3403)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -2

Class D: -1

Class 1 Extendable Combination Securities: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in 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 $265.2 million, defaulted
par of $60.2 million, a weighted average default probability of
14.55% (implying a WARF of 2836), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 50.47%, a diversity score of 22 and a weighted
average spread of 3.39%.

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.

A material proportion of the collateral pool includes debt
obligations whose credit quality Moody's assesses through credit
estimates. Moody's analysis reflects adjustments with respect to
the default probabilities associated with credit estimates.
Specifically, Moody's assumed an equivalent of Caa3 for assets
with credit estimates that have not been updated within the last
15 months, which represent approximately 3.5% of the collateral
pool. Additionally, for each credit estimates whose related
exposure constitutes more than 3% of the collateral pool, Moody's
applied a two-notch equivalent assumed downgrade to approximately
4.7% of the pool.


GMAC COMMERCIAL 2000-C3: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. K Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on one class and
affirmed the ratings on three classes of GMAC Commercial Mortgage
Securities, Inc. Series 2000-C3 as follows:

Cl. H, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 21, 2013 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Cl. J, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Nov 21, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

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

Cl. X, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Nov 21, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on one P&I class, Class J, was upgraded based primarily
on an increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization, an increase in defeasance and a reduction in
interest shortfalls. The deal has paid down 22% since Moody's last
review and defeasance is 57% of the pool as compared to 46% at
last review.

The rating on one P&I class, Class H, 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 one P&I class, Class K, was 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 0.3% of the
current balance, compared to 10.2% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 3.8% 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 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 two compared to three 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 September 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 96% to $45 million
from $1.27 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by five mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 33% of the pool (the largest defeased loan is 57% of
the pool). Two loans, constituting 57% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

Thirty-two loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $45 million (for an average loss
severity of 29%).

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 100% of the
pool and partial year 2014 operating results for 21% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 81% compared to 77% 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 17% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 8%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 0.99X and 1.32X,
respectively, compared to 1.08X and 1.37X 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 two performing loans represent 42% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the A-C Development Portfolio ($15 million --
33% of the pool), which is secured by four grocery anchored retail
centers located in South Carolina and Georgia. The anchor in each
center is Piggly Wiggly, which leases 77% of the portfolio net
rentable area (NRA) on multiple leases that expire in 2018 and
2019. The loan failed to pay off on its September 1, 2010
anticipated repayment date (ARD) and now has a provision for a
lockbox and 2% higher interest rate. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 84% and 1.16X, respectively, compared to 81% and 1.20X at the
last review.

The second largest loan is the Waterford at Summit View Apartments
Loan ($4 million -- 9% of the pool), which represents a 132-unit
multi-family property located in Swatara Township, Pennsylvania.
Occupancy was reported at 94% as of December 2013 compared to 95%
as of June 2013. The loan benefits from amortization and matures
in November 2015. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 71% and 1.37X,
respectively, compared to 64% and 1.52X at the last review.


GS MORTGAGE 2013-NYC5: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on XA-2 Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings on nine classes of
GS Mortgage Securities Corporation Trust, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-NYC5.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

Cl. A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Baa1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. XA-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. XA-2, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. XB-1, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the six P&I classes were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio and Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR), are
within acceptable ranges. The affirmation of three interest only
(IO) classes are due consistent expected credit performance of its
referenced classes. The Certificates are collateralized by a
single fixed rate loan backed by a first lien commercial mortgage
on five full-service hotels located in Manhattan. Moody's does not
rate the most junior principal class, Class G and an IO class,
Class XB-2.

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 defeasance in the pool 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, an increase in 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 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 September 12, 2014 Payment Date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance remains unchanged at $410 million,
the same as securitization. There is additional debt of $50
million in the form of subordinate unsecured partner loan that is
not an obligation of the borrowers, but of the joint venture
entity that indirectly owns the portfolio. The pool has not
experienced any losses of or interest shortfalls since
securitization.

The interest only fixed rate loan is secured by fee interests in
five full service hotels including Affinia Manhattan, Affinia
Shelburne, Affinia 50, The Benjamin, and Affinia Gardens. The
portfolio is located in Manhattan, and benefits from larger
guestroom size and rooms with kitchens in over half of the room
inventory.

All five properties are subject to separate management agreements
with DHG Management Company, LLC., an affiliate of one of the
sponsors, that run through 2031. The sponsors of the loan are
Denihan Hospitality Group (51%) and Pebblebrook Hotel Trust (49%),
a public REIT.

The portfolio's net cash flow (NCF) for 2013 was $37.4 million,
down from $43.1 million achieved in 2012. Three of the five
properties were in various stages of renovation and had a negative
impact on the bottom line. However, the year-to-date through June
2014 NCF was approximately 18% higher than that achieved during
the same period in 2013. Moody's stabilized NCF remains at $47.9
million, the same as at securitization. Moody's Trust LTV Ratio is
86%, the same as securitization. Moody's Trust Stressed DSCR is
1.26X, the same as securitization.


IVY HILL IX: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on $25MM Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to six classes of
notes issued by Ivy Hill Middle Market Credit Fund IX, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$182,000,000 Class A Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$32,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Fixed Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$24,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2025 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

$22,000,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2025 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

$25,000,000 Class E Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2025 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

The Class A Notes, the Class B-1 Notes, the Class B-2 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.

Ivy Hill IX is a managed cash flow SME CLO. The issued notes are
collateralized primarily by small and medium enterprise loans. At
least 95% of the portfolio must consist of senior secured loans
and eligible investments and up to 5% of the portfolio may consist
of second lien loans and senior unsecured loans. The portfolio
will be at least 90% ramped as of the closing date. The CLO is
acquiring most of the assets as participations from another CLO
managed by Ivy Hill Asset Management, L.P. (the "Manager").

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 reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager
will not be permitted to reinvest any amounts in additional
collateral obligations. Principal proceeds from unscheduled
prepayments and sales of assets will be used to amortize the CLO
notes sequentially.

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: $325,000,000

Diversity Score: 45

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3300

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.50%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.50%

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 3300 to 3795)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -1

Class B-2 Notes: -1

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 3300 to 4290)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-2 Notes: -3

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.

In addition, the scores for some sub-categories of the V Score
differ from the CLO sector benchmark scores because this is an SME
transaction. The scores for the quality of historical data for
U.S. SME loans and for disclosure of collateral pool
characteristics and collateral performance reflect higher
volatility. This results from lack of a centralized default
database for SME loans, as well as obligor-level information for
SME loans being more limited and less frequently provided to
Moody's than that for publicly rated companies.

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


JP MORGAN 2005-LDP3: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on Class G Secs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings of three classes
and affirmed nine classes in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage
Securities Corp. Series 2005-LDP3 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4B, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
A2 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Nov 15, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on three investment grade P&I classes were upgraded
due to an increase in credit support since Moody's last review,
resulting from pay downs and amortization, as well as Moody's
expectation of additional credit support increases resulting from
the payoff of loans approaching maturity that are well positioned
to refinance. The pool has paid down 10% since last review and
defeasance has increased from 2% to 7% of the pool. In addition,
loans constituting 59% of the pool that have debt yields exceeding
10% are scheduled to mature within the next 12 months.

The ratings on P&I classes A-1A, A-4A, A-4B, A-SB and D 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 E through G were affirmed because the
ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the one IO class, X-1, 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 2.9% of the
current balance compared to 4.5% at last review. Moody's base
expected loss plus realized losses is now 6.9% of the original
pooled balance compared to 7.1% 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 principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in
September 2000.

On October 9, 2014, Moody's issued a "Request for Comment" asking
for market feedback on proposed changes to the methodology it uses
to rate conduit and fusion CMBS transactions. If Moody's adopts
the new methodology as proposed, the changes could affect the
ratings of JPMCC 2005-LDP3.

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
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 36 compared to 42 at last review.

Deal Performance

As of the September 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 46% to $1.096
billion from $2.023 billion at securitization. The certificates
are collateralized by 177 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 9% of the pool.

There are 38 loans or 13% of the pool, 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-nine loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $108.3 million (55% loss severity on
average). There are no loans currently in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 95% of the
pool and partial 2014 operating results for 45% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 89% compared to 90% at
last review. Moody's actual and stressed DSCRs are 1.56X and
1.22X, respectively, compared to 1.63X and 1.20X at 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 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 20% of the pool. The largest
loan is the Universal Hotel Portfolio Loan ($100 million -- 9.1%),
which represents a pari passu interest in a $400 million first
mortgage loan secured by three full service hotel properties. The
three hotels are all located in Orlando, Florida and total 2,400
guest rooms. The properties are also encumbered by a $50 million
B-note, which is held outside the trust. The three hotels were all
constructed between 1999 and 2002. All are considered luxury
hotels and are located within Orlando's Universal Theme Park. The
portfolio's performance has declined slightly since last review.
Revenue per available room (RevPAR) increased by 2% to $195 from
$192 at last review. RevPAR has recovered from the downturn and is
now 44% greater than the portfolio's low of $135 in 2009. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 80% and 1.45X, respectively, compared to
74% and 1.57X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Four Seasons Boston Loan ($72.9
million -- 6.7%), which is secured by a 273-room luxury hotel
located in Boston, Massachusetts. The loan had an initial five-
year interest only period, but is now amortizing on a 25-year
schedule. After completion of room renovations, occupancy has
rebounded and ADR and RevPAR have both increased. The loan has
amortized 9% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 55% and 1.95X, respectively, compared to 74% and 1.46X at last
review.

The third largest loan is the Encino Financial Center Loan ($41.5
million -- 3.8%), which is secured by a 227,223 square foot office
building located in Encino, California. The property was 90%
leased as of June 2014 compared to 91% at last review. Property
performance has increased since last review and the loan has
amortized 6% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 109% and 0.89X, respectively, compared to 115% and 0.85X at
last review.


JP MORGAN 2006-LDP9: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on 2 Cert Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 28 classes of JP Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates, series 2006-LDP9 (JPMCC 2006-LDP9).

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations reflect continued performance in-line with
Fitch's expectations at the last rating action. Fitch modeled
losses of 20.3% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the
original pool balance total 21.4%, including $346.2 million (7.1%
of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date. Fitch
has identified 55 loans (55.4% of the current pool) as Fitch Loans
of Concern, which includes 14 specially serviced assets (25.3%).

As of the September 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 41.5% to $3.46 billion from
$4.89 billion at issuance. According to the servicer's reporting,
five loans (2.2%) are defeased. Interest shortfalls totaling $50.6
million are currently affecting classes A-J through NR.

The two largest contributors to Fitch-modeled losses have remained
the same since the last rating action. The third largest
contributor to loss was transferred to special servicing for the
second time earlier this month due to further performance
deterioration.

The largest contributor to modeled losses remains The Belnord
(10.9% of the pool), a 215-unit residential rental property with
60,514 square feet (sf) of retail space located in the Upper West
Side neighborhood of New York City. The loan transferred to
special servicing in June 2011 for imminent default. The loan was
underwritten to pro-forma income at issuance with the expectation
of converting rent controlled and rent-stabilized units at the
property to market rents, which did not materialize. A loan
modification closed in March 2013 with the maturity date extending
to November 2018 and the borrower contributing additional new
equity to fund future capital expenses. The loan continues to
perform according to the terms of the modification and the special
servicer continues to monitor the loan's performance and the
utilization of the additional funded equity by the borrower.
Between 2012 and 2013, occupancy and net operating income have
remained relatively stable. As of January 2014, the servicer-
reported occupancy was 94%. Year-end (YE) 2013 net operating
income (NOI) improved slightly by 4.6% and the YE 2013 debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR), on a NOI basis, was 0.55x compared
to 0.54x a year earlier.

The second largest contributor to modeled losses (5.6%) remains
the Americold Portfolio loan, which is secured by a portfolio of
four cold storage warehouse/distribution facilities totaling 3.3
million square feet (sf) located across four states (MO, TX, KS,
and MS). As of the March 2014 rent roll, the overall portfolio
occupancy was 62.7% compared to 90.5% at issuance. YE 2013 DSCR,
on a NOI basis, was 0.73x compared to 1.85x at issuance. The loan
has been reporting a low occupancy and low DSCR since 2010 due to
the West Point, Mississippi property ceasing physical operations
in 2010 as a result of minimal occupancy and in an effort to
reduce operating expenses. The sponsor continues to cover debt
service shortfalls out of pocket.

The third largest contributor to modeled losses (4.2%) is the
Colony IV Portfolio. The loan was initially collateralized by a
mix of 25 office and industrial properties totaling 2.38 million
sf located across six states (VA, IL, MA, NJ, TX, and GA). Five
properties (two located in GA, two located in TX, and one located
in IL) have since been released (between 2010 and 2014) from the
portfolio. The loan was first transferred to special servicing in
November 2010 for imminent default due to cash flow issues. A loan
modification closed in July 2012 which extended the maturity date
to December 2014. The borrower also has the option to extend the
maturity further to December 2015 and December 2016 subject to
additional paydown terms. The loan was recently transferred back
to special servicing (Oct. 1, 2014) for imminent default as the
borrower indicated to the master servicer it is not been able to
sell properties to qualify for the next extension option. As of YE
2013, the servicer-reported occupancy was 65%. YE 2013 DSCR, on a
net-cash flow (NCF) basis was 0.87x compared to 1.00x a year
earlier.

Ratings Sensitivities

Rating Outlooks on classes A-3 through A-1A remain Stable due to
sufficient credit enhancement and expected continued paydown. The
distressed classes (rated below 'Bsf') may be subject to further
rating actions as losses are realized.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes as indicated:

-- $1.63 billion class A-3 at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $51.7 million class A-3SFL at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $4.7 million class A-3SFX at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $661.9 million class A-1A at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $364 million class A-M at 'CCCsf'; RE 90%;
-- $121.4 million class A-MS at 'CCCsf'; RE 90%;
-- $318.5 million class A-J at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $106.3 million class A-JS at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $72.8 million class B at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $24.3 million class B-S at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $22.8 million class C at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $7.6 million class C-S at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $50 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $16.7 million class D-S at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $4.3 million class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $1.4 million class E-S at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class F-S at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class G-S at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class H-S 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 2013-C15: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 16 classes of J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust (JPMBB) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2013-C15.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations reflect the overall stable performance of the
pool. No loans have been in special servicing since issuance.
Three loans appear on the servicer watchlist (9.59% of the pool)
for either low debt service coverage ratios (DSCR) or lease roll,
including the third largest loan in the pool. Loans in the pool
were not required to report year-end (YE) 2013 financial
information. The first required financial reporting period was
March 31, 2014.

As of the September 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 0.7% to $1.18 billion from
$1.19 billion at issuance.

The largest loan (9.4% of the pool) is secured by the Miracle Mile
Shops, a 448,835 sf retail mall located along Las Vegas Boulevard,
at the base of the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino, in Las Vegas,
NV. The tenant base is geared to focus on the high foot traffic
along the Las Vegas Strip and include tenants such as V Theatre,
Planet Hollywood and Gap. The loan has an additional five pari
passu notes for total debt outstanding on the Miracle Mile Shops
of $580 million. The collateral is performing in line with
underwritten expectations with occupancy of 90% (as of June 2014)
and a 2013 NOI DSCR of 1.44x.

The next largest loan (8.7% of the pool) is secured by the Veritas
Multifamily Portfolio, a 45-property portfolio of multifamily
properties in San Francisco, CA. The portfolio contains 1,230
residential apartments and 22 commercial units across eight San
Francisco neighborhoods. The loan has a pari passu A-note for
total debt outstanding on the portfolio of $211.5 million. The
collateral is performing in line with underwritten expectations
with occupancy of 91.5% (as of March 2014) and a 1.37x DSCR.

The third largest loan (8.6% of the pool) is secured by 1615 L
Street, a 417,383-sf office building located in downtown
Washington, D.C., four blocks from the White House. The class A
property is 13 stories, was built in 1984 and extensively
renovated in 2009. The property features a renovated six-story
marble lobby, full-service fitness center, common area event
space, roof-top patio and dining area, 24-hour security, a
restaurant, and a 287-space below-grade parking garage. As noted
in Fitch's presale report, tenant rollover was concentrated in
2016, at which time 26% of the NRA was scheduled to expire,
including the second largest tenant, Pew Research Center. In early
2014, Pew Research renewed their lease for 73,960 sf through 2029,
with scheduled rent abatements through January 2015. The loan
appears on the servicer watchlist due to the low DSCR as a result
of the abatements; however, the rollover reserve established at
closing will partially fund the shortfall. Occupancy as of June
30, 2014 is 95.1% and the servicer reported DSCR is 1.42x as of
March 2014. The full term interest-only loan has an additional
$34.25 in pari passu debt for total debt outstanding on the
property of $134.25 million.

Rating Sensitivities

Rating Outlooks on classes A-1 through F remain Stable due to
overall stable collateral performance. No rating changes are
expected in the next few years unless there is a material
deterioration in occupancy or cash flow at any of the properties.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $54.8 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $285.3 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21.4 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $110 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $206.9 million class A-5 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $67.7 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $80 million class A-2FL at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $0 class A-2FX at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $93.9 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $44.7 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $59.6 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $23.9 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11.9 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.
-- $920.1 million class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76.0 million class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;

Fitch does not rate the class NR or the interest-only class X-C
certificates.


JP MORGAN 2014-PHH: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to J.P.
Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-PHH's $260
million commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series
2014-PHH.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgaged-backed
securities transaction backed by one floating-rate mortgage loan
totaling $260.0 million, secured by a first-lien mortgage on the
borrower's fee interest in the 1,642-guestroom Palmer House Hilton
hotel in Chicago and by a first-lien mortgage encumbering all of
the operating lessee's rights in the property.

The ratings are based on information as of Oct. 10, 2014.  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

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-PHH

Class       Rating         Amount ($)
A           AAA (sf)       94,300,000
X-CP        A- (sf)    157,300,000(i)
X-EXT       A- (sf)    157,300,000(i)
B           AA- (sf)       36,100,000
C           A- (sf)        26,900,000
D           BBB- (sf)      34,700,000
E           BB (sf)        29,400,000
F           B+ (sf)        38,600,000

(i) The notional amount of the class X-CP and X-EXT certificates
    will be reduced by the aggregate amount of principal
    distributions and realized losses allocated to the class A,
    class B, and class C certificates.


LCM XVII: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to LCM
XVII L.P./LCM XVII LLC's $368.00 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 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.

   -- 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 0.2281%-13.8385%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization and interest
      coverage tests, a failure of which will lead to the
      diversion of interest and principal proceeds to reduce the
      balance of the rated notes outstanding.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

LCM XVII L.P./LCM XVII LLC

Class                   Rating                  Amount
                                              (mil. $)
A                       AAA (sf)                255.00
B-1                     AA (sf)                  29.00
B-2                     AA (sf)                  24.00
C (deferrable)          A (sf)                   22.00
D (deferrable)          BBB (sf)                 18.00
E (deferrable)          BB (sf)                  20.00
Subordinated notes      NR                       42.50

NR--Not rated.


LIMEROCK CLO III: Moody's Rates $12.5MM Cl. E Notes '(P)B3'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
seven classes of notes to be issued by Limerock CLO III, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$315,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$35,500,000 Class A-2a Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-2a Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$20,000,000 Class A-2b Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-2b Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

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

$33,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Secured Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$31,500,000 Class D Deferrable Junior Secured Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$12,500,000 Class E Deferrable Junior Secured Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

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

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

Ratings Rationale

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

Limerock CLO 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 95% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 5.0% of the portfolio may consist of senior unsecured
loans, second lien loans, and first-lien last-out loans. Moody's
expect the portfolio to be approximately 80% ramped as of the
closing date.

Invesco Senior Secured Management, Inc. (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: 50

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2900

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.00%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 45.5%

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 2900 to 3335)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2a Notes: -2

Class A-2b Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2900 to 3770)

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. 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.


MARLBOROUGH STREET: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $9MM Cl E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Marlborough Street CLO, Ltd.:

$15,000,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
April 18, 2019, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on May 22, 2014
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

$15,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
April 18, 2019, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on May 22, 2014
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

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

$93,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
April 18, 2019 (current outstanding balance of $30,513,803),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$126,000,000 Class A-2A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
April 18, 2019 (current outstanding balance of $31,934,757),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$14,000,000 Class A-2B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
April 18, 2019, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 22, 2014
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$13,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due April
18, 2019, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 22, 2014 Upgraded
to Aaa (sf)

$9,000,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
April 18, 2019, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on May 22, 2014
Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Marlborough Street CLO, Ltd., issued in April 2007, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in April 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 May 2014. The Class A-1 and A-2A
notes have collectively been paid down by approximately 33.4% or
$31.2 million since that time. Based on the trustee's September
2014 report, the over-collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class
A/B, Class C, Class D and Class E notes are reported at 152.0%,
130.2%, 113.9% and 105.9%, respectively, versus May 2014 levels of
137.7%, 122.5%, 110.3% and 104.1% 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. 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% (2137)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2A: 0

Class A-2B: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: +2

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3205)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2A: 0

Class A-2B: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

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 $134.9 million, defaulted
par of $2.7 million, a weighted average default probability of
16.61% (implying a WARF of 2671), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 53.63%, a diversity score of 39 and a weighted
average spread of 3.03%.

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.


MASTR ASSET 2003-WMC2: Moody's Ups Cl. M-3 Notes Rating to Caa1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of four
tranches from MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2003-WMC2.

Complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2003-WMC2

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2013 Affirmed
B3 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2013
Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2013
Affirmed Ca (sf)

Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2013
Affirmed Ca (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions reflect recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools. The
ratings upgraded are a result of improving performance of the
related pools and/or improving credit enhancement on the bonds due
to continued availability of spread and failure of performance
triggers.

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 5.9% in September 2014 from
7.2% in September 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.


MCF CLO IV: S&P Assigns Preliminary BB Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to MCF CLO IV LLC's $348.25 million floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a CLO transaction backed by a revolving pool
consisting primarily of middle-market senior secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 13,
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 interests.

   -- 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 middle-market 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% -13.839%.

   -- 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, that are available (prior to
      paying uncapped administrative expenses and fees,
      subordinated management fees, collateral manager incentive
      fees, and subordinated note payments) to principal proceeds
      for the purchase of additional collateral obligations during
      the reinvestment period.

RATINGS LIST

MCF CLO IV LLC

Class       Preliminary rating   Preliminary amount (mil. $)
A           AAA (sf)                                 228.500
B           AA (sf)                                   34.250
C           A (sf)                                    28.500
D           BBB- (sf)                                 28.500
E           BB (sf)                                   28.500
Interests   NR                                        57.709

NR--Not rated.


MERRILL LYNCH 2002-MW1: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Notes Classes to D
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on three
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust's series 2002-MW1, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction, due to recurring
interest shortfalls.

The downgrades on classes H, J, and K reflect current and
potential interest shortfalls.  Specifically, S&P lowered the
ratings on classes J and K to 'D (sf)' because it expects the
accumulated interest shortfalls to remain outstanding.

As of the Sept. 12, 2014, trustee remittance report, the trust
experienced monthly interest shortfalls totaling $238,949,
primarily related to $195,867 in interest not advanced from a non-
recoverable determination on the largest asset remaining in the
pool, the Seven Mile Crossing real estate-owned (REO) asset ($30.7
million, 81.0% of the pool); $7,553 in special servicing fees; and
$35,529 in other interest loss related to the Seven Mile Crossing
REO asset.  None of the outstanding classes received interest
payments except for the class XC interest-only certificates, which
received $930 of its $59,490 accrued certificate interest amount.
In addition, classes J and K have experienced interest shortfalls
zor 10 and 13 consecutive months, respectively; classes J and K
zad $770,676 and $314,455, respectively, in accumulated interest
shortfalls outstanding.  Class H experienced interest shortfalls
for five consecutive months and had $48,051 in accumulated
interestshortfalls outstanding.

As of the Sept. 12, 2014, trustee remittance report, the
collateral pool balance was $37.9 million, which is 3.5% of the
pool balance at issuance.  The pool currently includes one REO
asset with the special servicer, one loan ($5.5 million, 14.4%)
with the special servicer, and one defeased loan ($1.7 million,
4.6%).  Details on the two specially serviced assets are:

   -- The Seven Mile Crossing REO asset, the larger of the two
      specially serviced assets, has a total reported exposure of
      $32.6 million.  The assetis a 346,265-sq.-ft. suburban
      office building in Livonia, Mich.  The loan was transferred
      to the special servicer on June 28, 2012, and the property
      became REO on Nov. 15, 2012.  The master servicer, Wells
      Fargo Bank N.A., deemed the asset nonrecoverable and has
      already started clawing back its advances.  According to the
      special servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, the
      property is currently being marketed for sale, and the
      timing of liquidation is uncertain at this time.  The
      reported occupancy is currently at 67.0%, and the reported
      cash flow is not sufficient to cover debt service as of
      year-end 2013.  S&P expects a moderate loss (between 26% and
      59%) upon the asset's eventual resolution.

   -- The 4400 Matthew Drive loan, the smaller of the two
      specially serviced assets, has a reported exposure of $5.5
      million.  The loan is secured by a 407,500-sq.-ft.
      industrial warehouse property in Flint, Mich.  The loan was
      transferred to the special servicer on Jan. 20, 2014, due to
      imminent default.  According to CWCapital, the property,
      which is currently 25.0% occupied, is under contract for
      sale with an anticipated Nov. 2014 closing date.  S&P
      expects a minimal loss (less than 10%) upon the loan's
      eventual resolution.

RATINGS LIST

Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust
Commercial mortgage pass-through certficates series 2002-MW1

                               Rating         Rating
Class        Identifier        To             From
H            59022HAJ1         B+ (sf)        BBB- (sf)
J            59022HAK8         D (sf)         B- (sf)
K            59022HAL6         D (sf)         CCC- (sf)


MERRILL LYNCH 2006-C1: Fitch Affirms C Rating on 8 Cert. Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded one class and affirmed 19 classes of
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust (MLMT 2006-C1) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2006-C1.

Key Rating Drivers

The downgrade is a result of higher expected losses for the pool
compounded by limited progress toward resolution of assets in
special servicing. The affirmations reflect sufficient credit
enhancement relative to Fitch expected losses. Fitch modeled
losses of 14.6% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the
original pool balance total 12.5%, including $52.8 million (2.1%
of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date. Fitch
has designated 62 loans (28.5%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which
includes 23 specially serviced assets (16.6%).

As of the September 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 28.6% to $1.78 billion from
$2.49 billion at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, 13 loans
(4.8% of the pool) are defeased. Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes C through Q.

Of the loans in special servicing, 21 assets (14.7% of pool
balance) are real-estate owned (REO), one asset (1%) is in
foreclosure and one loan (0.2%) is 90 days delinquent.

The largest contributor to expected losses (3.1% of pool balance)
is a 298,865 square foot (sf) REO asset consisting of two three-
story office buildings located in Scottsdale, AZ. The asset
transferred to special servicing in October 2009 when the largest
tenant (50% of the total net rentable area [NRA]) exercised its
early termination option and vacated. As of August 2014, occupancy
for the property improved to 77% due to the execution of a new
lease with the Vanguard Group for 148,000 sf in December 2013.
According to Reis, the Scottsdale office submarket of Phoenix
continues to have a high vacancy rate of 26% with average asking
rents of $25.11 per square foot (psf) compared to $17.64 psf for
the subject property.

The next largest contributor to expected losses (5.1%) is a
326,535 sf REO asset consisting of two office buildings in
Cerritos, CA. The loan transferred to special servicing in June
2013 for imminent default and became REO in February 2014. The
servicer is in final stages of negotiation on a renewal and
downsizing of the single tenant and has executed a direct lease
with a subtenant. Servicer has reported substantial interest on
the vacant space and is in active negotiations with a new
prospect. According to Reis, the East County office submarket of
Los Angeles had a vacancy rate of 13.5% with average asking rents
of $26.86 psf.

The third largest contributor to expected losses (1.3%) is a
356,061 sf office building located in downtown Cincinnati, OH. The
loan transferred to special servicing in June 2008 for imminent
default and became REO in March 2010. As of August 2014, occupancy
for the building declined to 67% from 70% in September 2013. The
occupancy is expected to decline further with the second largest
tenant in the building (11% of NRA) indicating plans to vacate at
lease expiration in early 2015. Approximately 16% of the NRA
expires through 2015. According to Reis, the CBD office submarket
of Cincinnati had a vacancy rate of 18.1% with average asking
rents of $19.45 psf compared to $16.40 psf for the subject
property.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch expects the ratings on the 'AAA' rated classes, A-3 through
A-1A to remain stable due to increasing credit enhancement and
continued paydown. Fitch performed additional stresses when
considering the Outlook for class A-M and expects the class to
remain stable due to sufficient credit enhancement. Distressed
classes (those rated below 'B') may be subject to further
downgrades as additional losses are realized.

Fitch downgrades the following class as indicated:

-- $249 million class A-M to 'AAsf' from 'AAAsf', Outlook to
   Stable from Negative.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $95.1 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $25 million class A-3B at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $30 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $753.4 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $180.8 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $217.9 million class A-J at 'CCCsf', RE 90%;
-- $56 million class B at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $28 million class C at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $31.1 million class D at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $18.7 million class E at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $28 million class F at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $21.8 million class G at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $24.9 million class H at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $6.2 million class J at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $9.3 million class K at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $3.2 million class L at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

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


MESA WEST: S&P Affirms 'CCC-' Rating on 4 Note Classes
------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-2, B, C, and D notes from Mesa West Capital CDO Ltd., a
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO)
transaction.  Concurrently, S&P affirmed its ratings on six other
classes and withdrew its rating on the class A-1 notes following
its full outstanding principal balance repayment as noted in the
Sept. 25, 2014, note valuation report.

The upgrades and affirmations reflect S&P's analysis of the
transaction's liability structure and the underlying collateral's
credit characteristics using S&P's global CDOs of pooled
structured finance assets criteria, S&P's U.S. and Canadian
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) rating methodology
and assumptions, and S&P's CMBS global property evaluation
methodology criteria.  The upgrades also reflect the transaction's
amortization.

According to the Sept. 25, 2014, note valuation report, the
transaction's collateral totaled $269.6 million, while the
transaction's liabilities totaled $268.9 million, down from $600.0
million in liabilities at issuance.  The transaction's current
asset pool includes 12 whole or senior participation loans ($269.6
million).  The Sept. 25, 2014, trustee report did not note any
defaulted assets.

Using loan performance information provided by the collateral
manager, S&P applied asset-specific recovery rates in its analysis
of 11 ($258.4 million, 95.8%) of the 12 performing loans using
S&P's U.S. and Canadian CMBS criteria and S&P's CMBS global
property evaluation methodology.  S&P did not apply an asset-
specific recovery rate to the PVI-WIP Clinton LLC whole loan
because the loan has a reported negative cash flow.

S&P also considered in its analysis qualitative factors, such as
the loans' near-term maturities, refinancing prospects, and
modifications.

According to the Sept. 25, 2014, trustee report, the deal passed
all of its overcollateralization and interest coverage tests.

RATINGS LIST

Mesa West Capital CDO Ltd.
                     Rating      Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1     59066XAA2    NR          BBB (sf)
A-2     59066XAC8    A+ (sf)     BB- (sf)
B       59066XAE4    BBB+ (sf)   B+ (sf)
C       59066XAG9    BB+ (sf)    B- (sf)
D       59066XAJ3    B+ (sf)     CCC+ (sf)
E       59066XAL8    CCC+ (sf)   CCC+ (sf)
F       59066XAN4    CCC+ (sf)   CCC+ (sf)
G       59066XAQ7    CCC- (sf)   CCC- (sf)
H       59066XAS3    CCC- (sf)   CCC- (sf)
J       59066XAU8    CCC- (sf)   CCC- (sf)
K       59066XAW4    CCC- (sf)   CCC- (sf)

NR--Not rated.


MORGAN STANLEY 2005-IQ9: Fitch Affirms CCCsf Rating on Cl. H Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one class and affirmed 14 classes of
Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust's commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2005-IQ9.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrade of class A-J reflects increasing credit enhancement
from paydown including the recent pay-off of the previous largest
loan, 125 Park Avenue. The affirmations of the remaining Fitch
rated classes are due to stable performance of the pool since the
last rating action. Fitch modeled losses of 13.3% of the remaining
pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total 5.0%,
including $23.4 million (1.5% of the original pool balance) in
realized losses to date. There are five specially serviced assets
(34.7% of the pool) as of the October 2014 remittance.

As of the October 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 73.7% to $402.8 million from
$1.53 billion at issuance, which includes the recent pay-off of
the 125 Park Avenue loan. Per the servicer reporting, three loans
(5.2% of the pool) are defeased. Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes K through P.

The largest contributor to expected losses (29.8% of the pool) is
the specially-serviced Central Mall Portfolio, which is secured by
a three-property mall portfolio (1,752,673 square feet [sf]). The
assets are located in tertiary markets (Lawton, OK, Texarkana, TX,
and Port Arthur, TX) and anchor tenants in each mall include
Sears, JC Penney, and Dillard's. The loan transferred to special
servicing in early October 2014 for imminent default, as the
December 2014 maturity date is approaching without a confirmed
pay-off. A potential sale for the Texarkana property is pending
and the borrower is working towards a refinance on the remaining
two properties; however, payoff of loan prior to maturity is
uncertain. As of YTD June 2014, the reported portfolio occupancy
and NOI DSCR was 92% and 1.29x, respectively.

The second largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-
serviced loan (2.5% of the pool) secured by a 147,377-sf light
industrial facility consisting of 11 buildings, located in West
Palm Beach, FL. Previously the loan transferred to special
servicing in June 2009 and was returned to the master servicer in
January 2012 as a corrected loan. The loan was transferred back to
special servicing in June 2014, as the borrower has failed to make
cash collateral reserve payments. Occupancy has improved since
2012; however, as of YE 2013 occupancy was 78% with a 0.88x NOI
DSCR.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-
serviced loan (1.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 441-unit
co-op in Decatur, GA. The loan transferred to special servicing in
February 2012. The borrower experienced financial hardships due to
prior mismanagement and increasing vacancy as a result of the poor
condition of the units. There are over 180 down units that are not
rentable and there is insufficient cash flow to renovate the
units. Per the special servicer, the current strategy is a note
sale.

Rating Sensitivity

Fitch applied additional stress scenarios in order to determine
upgrades including applying additional cash flow stresses to the
pool and deterministic tests to underperforming assets. The
ratings of the senior classes are expected to remain stable as it
is anticipated that credit enhancement will increase due to
scheduled paydown from loan pay-offs at maturity. Future upgrades
to classes B and C are unlikely due to the past history of
interest shortfalls and the likelihood that they may recur.
Further, a stress test performed on the Central Mall Portfolio
indicated that classes B and below are sensitive to fluctuations
in loan performance. Rating Outlooks on classes E, F and G are
Negative as they may be subject to future rating actions should
loans not refinance at their expected maturity dates and realized
losses be greater than Fitch's expectations.

Fitch upgrades the following classes as indicated:

-- $130.2 million class A-J to 'AAAsf' from 'AAsf', Outlook
Stable.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $119.8 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $32.6 million class B at 'Asf', Outlook Stable;
-- $11.5 million class C at 'Asf', Outlook Stable;
-- $26.8 million class D at 'BBB+sf', Outlook Stable;
-- $15.3 million class E at 'BBBsf', Outlook Negative;
-- $15.3 million class F at 'BBsf', Outlook Negative;
-- $11.5 million class G at 'Bsf', Outlook Negative;
-- $17.2 million class H at 'CCCsf', RE 35%;
-- $5.7 million class J at 'CCCsf', RE 0%;
-- $7.7 million class K at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $5.7 million class L at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $3.4 million 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, A-4, A-5 and A-AB 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, X-
2 and X-Y certificates.


MSBAM TRUST 2013-C7: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class G Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 15 classes
in Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C7
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-AB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. PST, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed A1
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed A2
(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 due to the credit
performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of the
referenced classes. The rating on the exchangeable class PST was
affirmed due to 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 2.6% of the
current balance, compared to 2.2% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.5% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 2.2% 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 Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in
April 2005.

On October 9, 2014, Moody's issued a "Request for Comment" asking
for market feedback on proposed changes to the methodology it uses
to rate conduit and fusion CMBS transactions. If Moody's adopts
the new methodology as proposed, the changes could affect the
ratings of MSBAM 2013-C7.

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, the same as at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the September 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 2% to $1.37 billion
from $1.39 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 64 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 12% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 55% of
the pool. One loan, constituting 2% of the pool, has an
investment-grade structured credit assessment.

Four loans, constituting 5% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

One loan, constituting 1% of the pool, is currently in special
servicing. The specially serviced loan is the Oakridge Office Park
Loan (for $16 million -- 1% of the pool), which is secured by five
properties totaling approximately 315,000 square feet of office
space in Orlando, FL. Several major tenants have departed at lease
expiration and the property was 48% occupied as of July 2014. The
Special Servicer has approved terms for a short-term forbearance
to provide the borrower with time to lease up the collateral.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 99% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 98%, compared to 99%
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 8% 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 1.72X and 1.07X,
respectively, compared to 1.70X and 1.05X 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 loan with a structured credit assessment is the Sunvalley
Shopping Center Fee Loan ($23 million -- 2% of the pool), which is
secured by a 1.4 million square foot ground lease in Concord,
California. The ground lease covers 68 acres and teh mall anchors
are Sears, JC Penney, and Macy's. The loan sponsor is Taubman
Realty Group L.P. Moody's structured credit assessment is aaa
(sca.pd), the same as at Moody's last review.

The top three conduit loans represent 28% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Chrysler East Building Loan ($165 million --
12% of the pool), which is secured by a 32-story, 745,000 SF
multi-tenant office building within the Grand Central office
market of New York, New York. The loan sponsor is Tishman Speyer
Properties. Major tenants include Credit Agricole S.A. (Moody's
Senior Unsecured Rating A2, negative outlook) and Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 113% and 0.81X,
respectively, the same as at Moody's last review.

The second largest loan is the Millennium Boston Retail Loan ($107
million -- 8% of the pool), which is secured by nine commercial
condominium units contained within three buildings, totaling
282,066 SF of mixed use space in the Midtown/Theater District area
of downtown Boston. The loan sponsor is Millennium Partners. The
properties are 100% leased to nine tenants, including Loews
Theater, The Sports Club/LA, and CVS. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 87% and 0.99X, respectively, compared to 88% and 0.98X at
the last review.

The third largest loan is the Solomon Pond Mall Loan ($107 million
-- 8% of the pool), which is secured by a 399,266 SF component of
a 884,758 SF regional mall located in Marlborough, MA situated
approximately 27 miles west of Boston. The loan sponsors are Simon
Property Group, Inc., Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, and
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America. The
property is anchored by Macy's, JC Penney, and Sears; however, the
anchors are not part of the collateral. Regal Cinema is the
property's largest tenant. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 93%
and 1.13X, respectively, compared to 95% and 1.11X at the last
review.


NATIONS EQUIPMENT: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating on Class C Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to the
Equipment Contract Backed Notes, Series 2014-1 (Series 2014-1 or
the notes) issued by Nations Equipment Finance Funding II, LLC.
The transaction is a securitization of equipment loans and leases
sponsored by Nations Equipment Finance, LLC (NEF), which will also
act as the servicer. The issuer, Nations Equipment Finance Funding
II, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NEF Holdings, LLC, (the
transferor) an affiliate of the servicer. The equipment loans and
leases were originated by Nations Fund I, LLC (the originator), a
subsidiary of the transferor and are backed by collateral
including trailers, trucks and various types of construction and
manufacturing equipment.

Issuer: Nations Equipment Finance Funding II, LLC - Equipment
Contract Backed Notes, Series 2014-1

$149,784,000 Fixed-rate Class A Notes, Definitive Rating Assigned
A3 (sf)

$12,644,000 Fixed-rate Class B Notes, Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa2 (sf)

$10,699,000 Fixed-rate Class C Notes, Definitive Rating Assigned
Ba2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Series 2014-1 is the second securitization sponsored by NEF, which
was founded and is led by a team of former GE Capital executives.

The definitive ratings that are assigned to the notes are
primarily based on:

(1) the assessed quality of the collateral, which consists
primarily of leases and loans secured by various equipment
including trailers, trucks and various types of construction and
manufacturing equipment;

(2) the historical performance of similar collateral originated by
the sponsor;

(3) the level of available credit enhancement provided by
subordination, reserve account, excess spread and
overcollateralization;

(4) the sequential pay structure;

(5) the origination and underwriting practices as well as the
servicing experience of NEF;

(6) the ability US Bank National Association (rated Aa3) and
Portfolio Financial Servicing Co as backup servicers for contracts
in the U.S. and Canada respectively; and

(7) the legal integrity of the transaction structure.

Credit support to the notes includes (i) initial
overcollateralization of 11%, which is expected to grow with time
as the notes pay down, (ii) annual excess spread of approximately
4.0%, (iii) a non-declining reserve account funded at 1.5% of the
initial collateral balance, and (iv) subordination in the case of
the Class A and Class B notes (12.0% and 5.5% respectively).

The equipment loans and leases backing the notes transaction were
extended primarily to middle market obligors and are secured by
various types of equipment including charter buses (9.6%), gas
compressors (6.4%), drill rig/top drives (5.7%), and trailers
(5.6%).

The pool consists of 128 contracts with 66 unique obligors and an
initial balance of $194,525,122. The average contract balance is
$1,519,728. The weighted average original and remaining terms to
maturity are 53 and 45 months, respectively. The largest obligor
is 6.4% of the initial pool balance and the top five obligors
comprise 26.1% of the initial pool balance. Nearly all of the
contracts in this deal are fixed interest rate and monthly pay.

Approximately 7.3% of the NEF 2014-1 collateral pool at closing
has exposure to equipment/obligors located in Canada. Additional
loans to obligors in Canada will be added to the collateral pool
at a later date through a pre-funding account subject to the
successful execution of a cross-currency swap. Post addition,
approximately 15% of the pool will have exposure to obligors in
Canada. In evaluating the transaction, Moody's has assumed that
the additional loans will eventually be added to the pool and all
collateral pool-related statistics in this press release assume
the same.


OCP CLO 2014-7: S&P Assigns Prelim. B Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to OCP CLO 2014-7 Ltd./OCP CLO 2014-7 Corp.'s $471.75
million floating-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 10,
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 securities.

   -- 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 consists
      primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- 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 0.235%-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.

   -- The transaction's reinvestment interest diversion test, a
      failure of which will lead to the reclassification of up to
      50% of available excess interest proceeds into principal
      proceeds, which are available before paying uncapped
      administrative expenses and fees; subordinated hedge
      termination payments; collateral manager incentive fees; and
      subordinated securities payments to principal proceeds to
      purchase additional collateral obligations during the
      reinvestment period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

OCP CLO 2014-7 Ltd./OCP CLO 2014-7 Corp.

Class                    Rating           Amount
                                         (mil. $)
A-1                      AAA (sf)        310.000
A-2                      AA (sf)          70.500
B (deferrable)           A (sf)           32.000
C (deferrable)           BBB (sf)         27.000
D (deferrable)           BB (sf)          21.750
E (deferrable)           B (sf)           10.500
Subordinated notes       NR               40.675

NR--Not rated.
N/A--Not applicable.


PREFERRED TERM XXII: S&P Raises Rating on Class A-2 Notes to BB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1 and A-2 notes from Preferred Term Securities XXII Ltd., a U.S.
cash flow trust-preferred collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
transaction, and removed them from CreditWatch with positive
implications.

The upgrades reflect improved coverage ratios due to paydowns on
the senior tranches and a decrease in the amount of bank trust-
preferred securities deferring payments.  The paydowns have
generally accelerated over the past year because more underlying
trust preferred securities have been redeemed.  In addition, the
class A-1 and A-2 notes have benefitted from excess spread that
was captured because of coverage (or overcollateralization) ratio
failures.  Finally, the upgrades also reflect the improved credit
quality of the underlying collateral portfolio of trust-preferred
securities, which are mainly issued by banks.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the September 2014 quarterly trustee
report.

Since S&P's last rating action in May 2012, the aggregate balances
of defaulted and deferred obligations decreased by $116.50
million, primarily due to some of the bank trust-preferred
securities in the collateral portfolio that were deferring
payments curing their deferrals to become current.

The transaction continues to fail its class B mezzanine coverage
test; as a result, all available interest proceeds are diverted to
pay down the class A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, and B-3 notes, pro rata, as
per the transaction documents.  After the Sept. 2014 payment
period, the remaining class A-1 note balance is $513.03 million,
equal to 67.61% of its original balance; it is down from $597.53
million in March 2012, which S&P used for its May 2012 rating
action.

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.  As
per 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 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 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

Preferred Term Securities XXII Ltd.
                             Notional balance (mil. $)
Class                   March 2012(i)        September 2014(ii)
A-1                            597.53                    513.03
A-2                            196.87                    194.20
B-1                             65.95                     62.55
B-2                             51.67                     48.12
B-3                             34.61                     29.16
C-1                             81.01                     84.07
C-2                             85.10                     88.32
D                              106.03                    112.71

Coverage tests (%)
Senior                         114.72               137.59
B                               96.27               114.87
C                               81.90                95.45
D                               74.77                85.95

(i) Trustee report used for S&P's March 2012 rating actions.
(ii) Following the Sept. 2014 distribution date.

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM WATCH POSITIVE

Preferred Term Securities XXII Ltd.

                  Rating
Class         To          From
A-1           BBB (sf)    BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2           BB (sf)     B- (sf)/Watch Pos


PREFERRED TERM XXV: S&P Raises Rating on Class A-2 Notes to B-
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its rating on the class
A-2 notes from Preferred Term Securities XXV Ltd., a U.S. cash
flow trust-preferred collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
transaction.  S&P also affirmed its rating on the class A-1 notes.
S&P removed both ratings from CreditWatch with positive
implications.

The upgrade reflects improved coverage ratios due to paydowns on
the senior tranches and a decrease in the amount of bank trust-
preferred securities deferring payments.  The paydowns have
generally accelerated over the past year because more underlying
trust preferred securities have been redeemed.  The upgrade also
reflects the improved credit quality of the underlying collateral
portfolio of trust-preferred securities, which are mainly issued
by banks.

The affirmation on class A-1 reflects the adequate credit support
available at its current rating.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the Sept. 2014 quarterly trustee
report.

Since S&P's last rating action in June 2012, the aggregate
balances of defaulted and deferred obligations decreased by
$238.00 million, primarily due to some of the bank trust-preferred
securities in the collateral portfolio that were deferring
payments curing their deferrals to become current.

The transaction continues to fail its senior coverage test; as a
result, all available interest proceeds are diverted to pay down
the class A-1 notes, as per the transaction documents.  After the
Sept. 2014 payment period, the remaining class A-1 note balance is
$295.08 million, equal to 62.02% of its original balance; it is
down from $356.90 million in March 2012.

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.  As
per 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 and/or
ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches.  The results of
the cash flow analysis demonstrated, 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 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

Preferred Term Securities XXV Ltd.

                             Notional balance (mil. $)
Class                   March 2012(i)        September 2014(ii)
A-1                            356.90                    295.08
A-2                            127.09                    127.09
B-1                             62.45                     63.76
B-2                             29.18                     29.79
C-1                             85.95                     88.53
C-2                             22.28                     22.94
D                               61.68                     65.07

Coverage tests (%)
Senior                         104.06               126.03
B                               87.50               103.17
C                               73.65                84.83
D                               67.56                76.86

(i)Trustee report used for our March 2012 rating actions.
(ii)Following the September 2014 distribution date.

RATING RAISED AND REMOVED FROM WATCH POSITIVE

Preferred Term Securities XXV Ltd.

                  Rating
Class         To          From
A-2           B- (sf)     CCC (sf)/Watch Pos

RATING AFFIRMED AND REMOVED FROM WATCH POSITIVE

Preferred Term Securities XXV Ltd.

                  Rating
Class         To          From
A-1           BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos


RAIT CRE I: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on Class C Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the
following notes issued by RAIT CRE CDO I, Ltd.

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Aa2 (sf)

Cl. A-1B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Aa2 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has affirmed the ratings of all 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.

RAIT CRE CDO I, Ltd. is a static cash transaction backed by a
portfolio of: i) whole loans (69.3% of the deal balance), ii)
mezzanine loans and preferred equity participations (28.9%), iii)
B-note debt (0.6%) and iv) REIT debt (1.1%). As of the September
7, 2014 trustee report, the aggregate note balance of the
transaction, including preferred shares, has decreased to $881.6
million from $1.018 billion at issuance, as a result of the
combination of regular amortization of the collateral pool and
recoveries from the resolution and sale of collateral, with the
paydown directed to the senior most outstanding classes of notes.
Previously, there were partial cancellations to the Class D, F, G
and H 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.

There are six assets with a par balance of $18.4 million (2.1% of
the current pool balance) that are considered defaulted interests
as of the September 7, 2014 trustee report, compared to seven
assets with a par balance of $17.9 million (1.9%) at last review.
One of these assets is B-note debt (30.0% of the defaulted
balance), and five assets (70.0%) are mezzanine loans. Moody's
expects high losses from these defaulted interests to occur 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 (excluding
defaulted securities) of 7974, compared to 7738 at last review.
The current ratings on the Moody's-rated collateral and the
assessments of the non-Moody's rated collateral follow: Baa1-Baa3
and 1.1%, the same as at last review; Ba1-Ba3 and 0.2%, the same
as at last review, B1-B3 and 3.0% compared to 3.7% at last review,
Caa1-Ca/C and 95.7% compared to 95.1% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 6.2 years, compared to 4.1 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying exposures.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 40.6%, compared to 40.5% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100%, 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 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
zero to nine notches upward (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 zero to seven 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.


REGATTA V FUNDING: Moody's Rates $27.7MM Class D Notes '(P)Ba2'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
eight classes of notes to be issued by Regatta V Funding Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$227,000,000 Class A-1A Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-1A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$95,500,000 Class A-1B Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-1B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$20,000,000 Class A-2A Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-2A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$20,000,000 Class A-2B1 Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-2B1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

$17,800,000 Class A-2B2 Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-2B2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa3 (sf)

$26,000,000 Class B Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$26,000,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$27,700,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba2 (sf)

The Class A-1A Notes, the Class A-1B Notes, the Class A-2A Notes,
the Class A-2B1 Notes, the Class A-2B2 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.

Regatta V 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 at least 85%
ramped as of the closing date

Napier Park Global Capital (US) LP (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): 2800

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.88%

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 2800 to 3220)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A Notes: 0

Class A-1B Notes: 0

Class A-2A Notes: -2

Class A-2B1 Notes: -2

Class A-2B2 Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

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

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A Notes: -1

Class A-1B Notes: -1

Class A-2A Notes: -4

Class A-2B1 Notes: -3

Class A-2B2 Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D 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.

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.


SF ADVISORS III: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class A Notes to Caa3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on notes issued
by Structured Finance Advisors ABS CDO III, Ltd.:

Class A First Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2032
(current outstanding balance of $15,212,625), Upgraded to Caa3
(sf); previously on June 11, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf).

Structured Finance Advisors ABS CDO III, Ltd., issued in June
2002, is a collateralized debt obligation issuance backed
primarily by a portfolio of RMBS and ABS originated between 1996
and 2005.

Ratings Rationale

The rating action is due primarily to the deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios. The Class A notes have paid down by
approximately 31.1%, or $6.9 million, since October 2013. Based on
Moody's calculation, the par coverage on the Class A notes has
increased to approximately 85%. As a result of the acceleration of
the transaction discussed below, Class A notes have been paid down
from excess interest proceeds in the total amount of $1.8 million
since January 2014. The Class A notes have also been repaid from
certain assets treated as defaulted by the trustee where the
issuer has received recovery amounts materially exceeding
expectations. Accordingly, Moody's have assumed the deal will
continue to benefit from the diversion of excess interest and from
recoveries on defaulted securities, some of which have experienced
significant price increases in the last two years.

The trustee reported that, on April 14, 2008, the transaction
experienced an "Event of Default" as set forth in Section 5.1 (i)
of the indenture dated June 25, 2002. The Event of Default
continues. On May 7, 2014, holders of at least 50% of the
controlling class have directed the trustee to declare the notes
immediately due and payable. As a result of acceleration, the
Class A notes will receive all interest and principal proceeds
until they are paid in full.

Under Article V of the indenture, during the occurrence and
continuance of an Event of Default, if liquidation proceeds will
not equal the aggregate par of the portfolio sold, the
noteholders, by unanimous consent, can direct the trustee to
proceed with the sale and liquidation of the collateral. In that
event, the severity of losses will depend on the timing and choice
of remedy pursued. Moody's believes the likelihood of liquidation
is low because of the unanimous voting requirement to liquidate.

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 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 limited recoveries, and therefore,
realization of any recoveries exceeding Moody's expectation in the
future would positively impact the notes' ratings.

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 deal's ratings are not expected to be sensitive to the typical
range of changes (plus or minus two rating notches on Caa-rated
assets) in the rating quality of the collateral that Moody's
tests, and no sensitivity analysis was performed.


SHINNECOCK CLO 2006-1: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
C and D notes and affirmed its ratings on the class A-1, A-2, B,
and E notes from Shinnecock CLO 2006-1 Ltd., a U.S. collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) transaction.  At the same time, S&P removed
its ratings on the class B, C, and D notes from CreditWatch, where
S&P had placed them with positive implications on Aug. 29, 2014.

The transaction is in its amortization phase and continues to pay
down the class A-1 notes.  S&P raised its ratings on the class A-
2, B, C, D, and E notes in Jan. 2013.  Since then, the class A-1
notes have paid down an additional $55 million, leaving about 69%
of the original balance remaining.

The upgrades reflect the increased credit support following these
paydowns to the class A-1 notes and the increased
overcollateralization (O/C) ratios.  According to the Sept. 2014
trustee report, the senior (class B) O/C ratio was 126.23%, up
from 121.61% in Nov. 2012, which S&P used for its Jan. 2013 rating
actions.  The mezzanine (class D) O/C ratio was 110.52% in Sept.
2014, up from 109.63% in Nov. 2012.

In addition, the transaction continues to have a low level of
defaults.  According to the Sept. 2014 monthly trustee report,
only about 1% of the pool is in defaulted obligations.

S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A-1, A-2, B, and E notes to
reflect its belief that the credit support available is
commensurate with the current ratings.  S&P's rating on the class
E notes was limited by its largest obligor default test, which
intends to address the potential concentration of exposure to
obligors in the transaction's portfolio.

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

Shinnecock CLO 2006-1 Ltd.

                            Cash flow
       Previous             implied      Cash flow   Final
Class  rating               rating       cushion(i)  rating
A-1    AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)     27.94%      AAA (sf)
A-2    AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)     13.85%      AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AA+ (sf)     11.26%      AA+ (sf)
C      A (sf)/Watch Pos     AA- (sf)     1.37%       AA- (sf)
D      BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos  BBB+ (sf)    3.44%       BBB+ (sf)
E      BB+ (sf)             BBB- (sf)    0.83%       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:

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    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
C      AA- (sf)   A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)  BBB- (sf)  BBB+ (sf)   A- (sf)     BBB+ (sf)
E      BBB- (sf)  BB+ (sf)   BB+ (sf)    BBB (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 spreads 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       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)     AA (sf)       AA+ (sf)
C       AA- (sf)    A+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)     AA- (sf)
D       BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
E       BBB- (sf)   BB+ (sf)     B+ (sf)       BB+ (sf)

RATING ACTIONS

Shinnecock CLO 2006-1 Ltd

                Rating
Class     To             From
B         AA+ (sf)       AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C         AA- (sf)       A (sf)/Watch Pos
D         BBB+ (sf)      BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Shinnecock CLO 2006-1 Ltd

Class         Rating
A-1           AAA (sf)
A-2           AAA (sf)
E             BB+ (sf)


SILVERADO CLO 2006-II: S&P Affirms BB- Rating on Class D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-1J, A-2, B, and C notes from Silverado CLO 2006-II Ltd., a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by New
York Life Investment Management LLC, and removed them from
CreditWatch, where they were placed with positive implications on
Aug. 29, 2014.  Simultaneously, S&P affirmed its ratings on the
class A-1S and D notes from the same transaction.

The transaction is structured so that the class A-1S notes receive
payments before the class A-1J notes. As a result, the class A-1S
notes can be paid in full ahead of the class A-1 and A-1J notes
and hence support a higher rating.

The transaction ended its reinvestment period in Oct. 2013 and
commenced paying down the notes.  The aggregate paydowns to the
class A-1 and A-1S notes so far totals approximately $21.45
million; this reduced their outstanding balances to 91.70% and
90.70%, respectively, of their original issuance, which they held
when S&P took its July 2012 rating actions.

The paydowns have marginally improved the senior notes'
overcollateralization (O/C).  For instance, per the Sept. 2014
monthly trustee report, the class A O/C ratio is 125.73%, up from
124.29% in June 2012.

In addition, the portfolio's credit quality has improved during
this period, and the transaction has no defaults as of the Sept.
2014 monthly trustee report.

The manager retains a portion of the unscheduled principal
proceeds for reinvestment, which S&P considered in its analysis.

S&P raised its ratings on the class A-1, A-1J, A-2, B, and C notes
following an increase in their credit support.  The rating
affirmations on the class A-1S and D notes reflect the adequate
credit support available at their current ratings.

Although the class D notes failed the largest-obligor default test
at the 'BB' rating level, the final rating considers various
factors, including the small margin of failure--less than
$500,000--and cash flow results that suggest a higher rating.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis to
estimate future performance based on the portfolio and transaction
reflected in the trustee report.  In line with S&P's criteria, its
cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking assumptions on the
expected default timing, pattern, and recoveries under various
interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P
considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest,
ultimate principal, or both to each of the rated tranches.  In
S&P's view, the cash flow analysis demonstrated 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.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Silverado CLO 2006-II Ltd.

                           Cash flow
       Previous            implied    Cash flow   Final
Class  rating              rating     cushion(i)  rating
A-1S   AAA                 AAA (sf)   20.18%      AAA (sf)
A-1    AA+(sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)   9.04%       AAA (sf)
A-1J   AA+(sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)   9.04%       AAA (sf)
A-2    AA (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)   0.18%       AA+ (sf)
B      A (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)   1.35%       AA- (sf)
C      BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos BBB+ (sf   4.72%       BBB+ (sf)
D      BB- (sf)            BB+ (sf)   0.10%       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.

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

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

Silverado CLO 2006-II Ltd.

                   Rating
Class        To              From
A-1          AAA (sf)        AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-1J         AAA (sf)        AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2          AA+ (sf)        AA (sf)/Watch Pos
B            AA- (sf)        A (sf)/Watch Pos
C            BBB+ (sf)       BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos

RATINGS AFFIRMED
Silverado CLO 2006-II Ltd.

Class        Rating
A-1S         AAA (sf)
D            BB- (sf)


TIAA STRUCTURED II: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. A-2 Notes to Caa3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on notes issued
by TIAA Structured Finance CDO II, Limited:

US$25,000,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Term Notes Due May 10, 2038
(current outstanding balance of $14,257,700), Upgraded to Caa3
(sf); previously on June 9, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf)

TIAA Structured Finance CDO II, Limited, issued in May 2003, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of
RMBS and ABS originated in 2002 and 2003.

Ratings Rationale

The rating action is due primarily to the deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since February 2014. The Class A-2 notes
have paid down by approximately 39.8%, or $9.4 million since that
time. Based on Moody's calculation, the over-collateralization
ratio of the Class A-2 notes is currently 134.63%, versus 91.66%
in February 2014. Moody's notes that majority of the principal
used to repay the senior notes was from the sale of $14.4 million
of defaulted par in April that generated $6.7 million of principal
proceeds.

Despite benefits of the deleveraging, the credit quality of the
portfolio has deteriorated since February 2014. Based on Moody's
calculation, the weighted average rating factor is currently 4266,
compared to 3459 in February 2014.

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 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) 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 Caa1 or lower, especially if they jump to
default. Because of the deal's lack of granularity, Moody's
supplemented its analysis with an individual scenario analysis.

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):

Caa ratings notched up by two rating notches (2610):

Class A-2: 0
Class B: 0
Class C-1: 0
Class C-2: 0

Caa ratings notched down by two notches (4752):

Class A-2: 0
Class B: 0
Class C-1: 0
Class C-2: 0


TRIMARAN CLO IV: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Class B-2L Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-3L and B-1L notes from Trimaran CLO IV Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by Trimaran Advisors
LLC., and removed them from CreditWatch with positive
implications.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the
class A-2L and B-2L notes from the same transaction.

The transaction is in its amortization phase and continues to pay
down the senior notes.  On the Sept. 2, 2014, payment date, the
class A-1L notes was paid down in full (its rating was
subsequently withdrawn), and the class A-2L note had a partial
paydown of $3.64 million, which reduced its balance to 85.44% of
its original balance.

This improved the overcollateralization (O/C) to all the notes.
For example, the trustee reported the class A O/C ratio--measured
at the class A-3 level--at 178.46% in Aug. 2014, up from 126.77%
in May 2013, which S&P used for its June 2013 rating actions.  S&P
expects the A O/C ratio to increase even further after considering
the September paydowns.

According to the Aug. 2014 trustee report, the transaction has no
defaulted obligations.  In addition, as per the monthly trustee
reports, the amount of 'CCC' rated collateral decreased to $0.33
million in August 2014 from $4.93 million in May 2013.

S&P raised its ratings on the class A-3L and B-1L notes after the
paydowns improved the credit support to the rated tranches at
their prior rating levels.  The affirmations on the class A-2L and
B-2L notes reflect the adequate credit support available at their
current ratings.

S&P's ratings on the class B-1L and B-2L notes were driven by its
largest obligor default test, which intends to address the
potential concentration of exposure to obligors in the
transaction's portfolio.  Based on S&P's review, the top five
assets account for almost 65% of the total performing portfolio.

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

Trimaran CLO IV Ltd.

                                 Cash flow
          Previous               implied     Cash flow     Final
Class     rating                 rating      cushion(i)    rating
A-2L      AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    22.48%        AAA (sf)
A-3L      AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    22.48%        AAA (sf)
B-1L      BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AA+ (sf)    29.71%        A+ (sf)
B-2L      BB+ (sf)             AA- (sf)    3.86%         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.

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-2L      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-3L      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B-1L      AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)
B-2L      AA- (sf)   A+ (sf)   AA- (sf)    AA+ (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-2L   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-3L   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
B-1L   AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)     A+  (sf)
B-2L   AA- (sf)     AA- (sf)      A   (sf)     BB+ (sf)

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM WATCH POSITIVE

Trimaran CLO IV Ltd.

              Rating
Class     To          From
A-3L      AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-1L      A+ (sf)     BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Trimaran CLO IV Ltd.

Class   Rating
A-2L    AAA (sf)
B-2L    BB+ (sf)


TRIMARAN VII: Moody's Raises Rating on $12.5MM B-2L Notes to Ba2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Trimaran VII CLO Ltd.:

$35,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due June 15, 2021,
Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on April 17, 2013 Upgraded to Aa1
(sf)

$30,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due June 15, 2021,
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on April 17, 2013 Upgraded to A3
(sf)

$18,500,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due June 15, 2021,
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on April 17, 2013 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

$12,500,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due June 15, 2021,
Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on April 17, 2013 Upgraded to Ba3
(sf)

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

$333,000,000 Class A-1L Floating Rate Notes Due June 15, 2021
(current outstanding balance of $216,692,648), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on April 17, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$25,000,000 Class A-1LR Floating Rate Notes Due June 15, 2021
(current outstanding balance of $16,268,217), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on April 17, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Trimaran VII CLO Ltd., issued in March 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 over-
collateralization ratios since January 2014. The Class A-1L notes
have been paid down by approximately 26.2% or $82.8 million since
that time. Based on the trustee's September 2014 report, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class A-2L, Class A-3L,
Class B-1L and Class B-2L notes are reported at 127.75%, 116.35%,
110.29% and 106.53%, respectively, versus January 2014 levels of
124.09%, 114.31%, 109.01% and 105.70%, respectively. The OC ratios
reported in the September 2014 trustee report do not include the
September 2014 payment distribution when $38.3 million of
principal proceeds were used to pay down the Class A-1L and Class
A-1LR 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.

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% (1986)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LR: 0

Class A-2L: +1

Class A-3L: +2

Class B-1L: +3

Class B-2L: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2978)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LR: 0

Class A-2L: -1

Class A-3L: -2

Class B-1L: -1

Class B-2L: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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 $352.9 million, no defaulted
par of, a weighted average default probability of 16.10% (implying
a WARF of 2482), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of
52.10%, a diversity score of 44 and a weighted average spread of
3.01%.

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.


WACHOVIA BANK 2005-C20: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to BB-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on six
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust's series 2005-C20, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  In
addition, S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on five 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 its criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS transactions,
which included a review of the credit characteristics and
performance of the remaining loans in the pool, the transaction's
structure, and the liquidity available to the trust.

The upgrades reflect S&P's expectation of the available credit
enhancement for the classes, which S&P believes is greater than
its most recent estimates of the necessary credit enhancement at
the respective rating levels.  The upgrades also reflect S&P's
views regarding the current and future performance of the
transaction's collateral, the available liquidity support, and the
17 defeased loans ($459.4 million, 23.6%) in the pool.

The affirmations on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit
enhancement for these classes will be within its estimate of the
necessary credit enhancement required for the current ratings.
The affirmations also reflect S&P's views regarding the current
and future performance of the transaction's collateral, the
transaction structure, and the liquidity support available to the
classes.

S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' rating on the class X-C interest-only
(IO) certificates based on our criteria for rating IO securities.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 17, 2014, trustee remittance report, the
collateral pool balance was $1.94 billion, which is 53.1% of the
pool balance at issuance.  The pool currently includes 119 loans
(reflecting cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted loans), down
from 209 loans at issuance.  Three loans ($19.1 million, 1.0%;
reflecting the cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted loan as
one loan) are currently with the special servicer, 17 loans are
defeased, and 20 loans ($327.2 million, 16.8%) are on the master
servicer's watchlist.  The master servicer, Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
(Wells Fargo), reported financial information for 96.5% of the
nondefeased loans in the pool, of which the majority was year-end
2013 data.

S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average debt service
coverage (DSC) of 1.55x and loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 76.9%
using a Standard & Poor's weighted average capitalization rate of
7.58%.  The DSC, LTV ratio, and capitalization rate calculations
exclude the three specially serviced loans, 17 defeased loans, and
one subordinate B hope note ($3.2 million, 0.2%).

The top 10 nondefeased loans have an aggregate outstanding pool
trust balance of $754.4 million (38.8%). Using servicer-reported
numbers, S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average DSC
and LTV ratio of 1.64x and 76.3%, respectively, for the top 10
nondefeased loans.

To date, the transaction has experienced $167.0 million in
principal losses, or 4.6% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 4.7% 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 of
the three specially serviced loans.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Sept. 17, 2014, trustee remittance report, two loans in
the pool ($17.1 million, 0.9%) were with the special servicer,
CWCapital Asset Management LLC (CWCapital).  Wells Fargo indicated
that another loan, the 7 Mill Pond Drive & 1 Regency Drive loan
($2.0 million, 0.1%), secured by a 19,333-sq.-ft. suburban office
building and an 11,000-sq.-ft. retail property in Connecticut, was
transferred to CWCapital on Sept. 18, 2014, because it had a
reported two months delinquent payment status and a 0.68x DSC for
year-end 2013.  Details on the remaining specially serviced loans
are:

   -- The Corinthian Medical College loan ($6.2 million, 0.3%) is
      cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted with the specially
      serviced Merrionette Park Medical Center loan ($5.4 million,
      0.3%).  The crossed loan is secured by two medical office
      properties totaling 98,400 sq. ft. in Merrionette Park, Ill.
      and has a $11.8 million total reported exposure.

   -- The crossed loan has a reported two months delinquent
      payment status and was transferred to CWCapital on Aug. 18,
      2014, because of imminent default.  CWCapital stated that it
      is evaluating various liquidation strategies for the loan.
      S&P expects a minimal loss (less than 25%) upon the loan's
      eventual resolution.

   -- The Holiday Inn Express - Mechanicsville, VA loan ($5.5
      million, 0.3%) has a $5.5 million total reported exposure
      and is secured by a 105-room limited service hotel in
      Mechanicsville, Va.  The loan was transferred to CWCapital
      on July 17, 2014, because of imminent default.  The reported
      DSC and occupancy for year-end 2013 were 0.85x and 43.5%,
      respectively.  S&P expects a minimal loss upon the loan's
      eventual resolution.

S&P estimated losses on the three specially serviced loans,
arriving at a 22.7% loss severity.

RATINGS LIST

Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2005-C20

                               Rating           Rating
Class        Identifier        To               From
A-7          9297664Q3         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-1A         9297664R1         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-MFL        9297664S9         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-MFX        9297664T7         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-J          9297664U4         AA+ (sf)         AA- (sf)
B            9297664V2         AA- (sf)         A- (sf)
C            9297664W0         A (sf)           BBB+ (sf)
D            9297664X8         BBB- (sf)        BB+ (sf)
E            9297662Z5         BB- (sf)         B+ (sf)
F            9297663A9         B- (sf)          CCC+ (sf)
X-C          9297663M3         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)


WACHOVIA BANK 2007-C34: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 10 Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 21 classes
in Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-C34 as follows:

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

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

Cl. A-PB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Downgraded to
A2 (sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Downgraded to
B1 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Downgraded to
B2 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Downgraded to
B3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Downgraded to
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Downgraded to
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Downgraded to
Ca (sf)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cl. P, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. Q, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. IO, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Nov 7, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on P&I classes A-1A through 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 P&I classes B through Q 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 14.2% of
the current balance compared to 12.2% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 13.0% of
the original pooled balance, compared to 12.4% 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.

On October 9, 2014, Moody's issued a "Request for Comment" asking
for market feedback on proposed changes to the methodology it uses
to rate conduit and fusion CMBS transactions. If Moody's adopts
the new methodology as proposed, the changes could affect the
ratings of WBCMT 2007-C34.

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 28, the same as at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the September 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 21% to $1.17
billion from $1.48 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 103 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 13% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting
42% of the pool. The pool does not have any defeased or structured
credit assessed loans.

At last review, the Greentree Shopping Center Loan ($9 million --
0.8% of the pool) had a structured credit assessment. It was
removed at this review due to a decline in performance as a result
of the anchor tenant (30% net rentable area (NRA)) vacating the
center.

Twenty loans, constituting 21% 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 $26 million (for an average loss
severity of 27%). Twelve loans, constituting 19% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Sheraton Park Hotel Loan ($65.0 million -- 5.5% of the
pool), which is secured by a 490-room full-service hotel in
Anaheim, California located adjacent to Anaheim Convention Center
and within easy walking-distance to Disneyland theme park. The
loan transferred to special servicing in February 2012 due to
imminent monetary default and became real estate owned (REO) in
June 2013. The property has been undergoing renovations since
April 2014 with a targeted completion for November 2014. The
current gameplan is to stabilize the asset and to sell it in 2016.

The remaining eleven specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $122.8 million
loss for the specially serviced loans (54% expected loss on
average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for seven poorly
performing loans, constituting 7% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $15.0 million (an 17% expected loss based on
a 50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 96% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2014 operating results for 83% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 103% 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 12% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.8%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.45X and 1.28X,
respectively, compared to 1.47X and 1.21X 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 22% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Ashford Hospitality Pool 5 Loan ($154 million
-- 13% of the pool), which is secured by a portfolio of five
hotels, including three Marriott-flagged hotels in New Jersey,
Texas, and North Carolina, a Sheraton-flagged hotel in
Pennsylvania, and an Embassy Suites-flagged hotel in Arizona.
Financial performance has declined since last review despite an
improvement in occupancy and revenue per available room (RevPAR).
Occupancy and RevPar for the trailng twelve months ending July
2014 were 69% and $103, respectively, compared to 67% and $99 for
full year 2013. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 119% and 1.00X,
respectively, compared to 105% and 1.13X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Integrated Health Campus Loan ($57
million -- 5% of the pool), which is secured by a 302,000 SF
medical office property located in the Allentown-Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania area. The property was 91% leased as of June 2014
compared to 80% at last review. The improvement in occupancy is
primarily due to Lehigh Valley Health Network signing for 39,857
SF (13% NRA) in January 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
112% and 0.87X, respectively, compared to 111% and 0.88X at the
last review.

The third largest loan is a Retail Portfolio Loan, originally
known as the Cole REIT Portfolio Loan ($47 million -- 4% of the
pool), which is secured by a 512,000 SF portfolio of fourteen
cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted loans secured by fourteen
single-tenant properties across eleven states. Spirit Realty is
now the sponsor after merging with Cole Credit Property Trust II
in July 2013. The largest tenant is Sam's Club (135,000 SF; 26%
NRA) occupying one location in Anderson, South Carolina. The
second largest tenant is Wal-Mart (93,000 SF;18% NRA) occupying
two locations in New London, Wisconsin and Spencer, Indiana. The
third largest tenant is Ashley Furniture (75,000 SF;15% NRA)
occupying one location in Amarillo, Texas. The portfolio was 98%
leased as of June 2014 compared to 100% at last review. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 111% and 0.91X, respectively, compared
to 115% and 0.89X at the last review.


WESTCHESTER CLO: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes to 'BB+'
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1-B, B, C, D, and E notes from Westchester CLO Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by
Highland Capital Management L.P.  At the same time, S&P removed
its ratings on these classes from CreditWatch, where it had placed
them with positive implications on Aug. 29, 2014.  In addition,
S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class A-1-A notes from
the same transaction and the class A1 and A2 notes from Blue Wing
Asset Vehicle Series 2009-1, a retranching of the class A-1-A
notes from Westchester CLO Ltd.

The upgrades reflect the underlying asset portfolio's improved
credit performance since S&P's Dec. 2012 rating actions, when it
raised its ratings on two classes of notes from Westchester CLO
Ltd.  The affirmations on Westchester CLO Ltd.'s class A-1-A notes
and Blue Wing Asset Vehicle Series 2009-1's class A1 and A2 notes
reflect S&P's belief that the credit support available is
commensurate with their current rating levels.

The underlying portfolio's credit quality improved since Dec.
2012.  According to the Aug. 2014 trustee report, 'CCC+' or lower
rated assets totaled $36.50 million, down from $71.34 million in
the Oct. 2012 trustee report, which S&P referenced for the Dec.
2012 rating actions.  In addition, the underlying collateral's
weighted average life decreased to 4.20 years from 4.85 years over
the same period.

S&P also noted that the underlying portfolio is relatively
concentrated by obligor.  According to the Aug. 2014 trustee
report, the top five obligors account for 9.77% of the total
underlying portfolio including defaulted assets.  Currently, the
largest obligor test drives the ratings on the class C, D, and E
notes.  This test addresses the potential concentration of
exposure to certain obligors in the transaction's portfolio.

There is a feature in the principal waterfall that allows
principal proceeds to pay down deferred interest on the class E
notes.  The waterfall also has a turbo feature that redirects
residual interest and principal to pay down the class E notes if
the class E coverage tests are not satisfied.  Principal cash may
only be used to pay down the class E notes if the payment doesn't
cause any other coverage test above it to fail.  According to the
Aug. 2014 trustee report, the class E overcollateralization ratio
was 102.68%, above the 102.30% threshold.

Blue Wing Asset Vehicle Series 2009-1 is a retranche of
Westchester CLO Ltd.'s class A-1-A notes.  The series 2009-1
certificates are indirectly backed by the same underlying
collateral that supports Westchester CLO Ltd.'s class A-1-A notes
and are entitled to receive cash flows from their shares of the
class A-1-A notes' distributions.

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

Westchester CLO Ltd.

                            Cash flow
       Previous             implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating               rating      cushion(i)   rating
A-1-A  AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    19.51%       AAA (sf)
A-1-B  AA (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    1.15%        AAA (sf)
B      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)    1.88%        AA+ (sf)
C      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos   A+ (sf)     1.01%        BBB+ (sf)
D      B+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB- (sf)   2.18%        BB+ (sf)
E      CCC- (sf)/Watch Pos  BB- (sf)    1.66%        CCC+ (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
A-1-A  AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-1-B  AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)  AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)   AA- (sf)  AA (sf)      AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
C      A+ (sf)    A- (sf)   A (sf)       A+ (sf)     BBB+ (sf)
D      BBB- (sf)  BB+ (sf)  BBB- (sf)    BBB+ (sf)   BB+ (sf)
E      BB- (sf)   B+ (sf)   BB (sf)      BB+ (sf)    CCC+ (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-A  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-1-B  AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      A- (sf)       AA+ (sf)
C      A+ (sf)      A (sf)        BB+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
D      BBB- (sf)    BB+ (sf)      CCC (sf)      BB+ (sf)
E      BB- (sf)     BB- (sf)      CC (sf)       CCC+ (sf)

RATING AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

Westchester CLO Ltd.

Class          Rating
         To             From
A-1-B    AAA (sf)       AA (sf)/Watch Pos
B        AA+ (sf)       A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C        BBB+ (sf)      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos
D        BB+ (sf)       B+ (sf)/Watch Pos
E        CCC+ (sf)      CCC- (sf)/Watch Pos

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Westchester CLO Ltd.

Class     Rating
A-1-A     AAA (sf)

Blue Wing Asset Vehicle Series 2009-1

Class     Rating
A1        AAA (sf)
A2        AAA (sf)


WHITEHORSE IV: Moody's Raises Rating on $15MM Cl. D Notes to Ba2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded ratings on the following
notes issued by WhiteHorse IV Ltd.:

$28,000,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Upgraded to
Aaa (sf); previously on October 23, 2013 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf);

$25,000,000 Class B Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2020,
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on October 23, 2013 Affirmed A3
(sf);

$16,500,000 Class C Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Upgraded to
Baa2 (sf); previously on October 23, 2013 Affirmed Ba1 (sf);

$15,000,000 Class D Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Upgraded to
Ba2 (sf); previously on October 23, 2013 Affirmed Ba3 (sf).

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

$330,500,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes Due 2020 (current
outstanding balance of $239,457,804), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on October 23, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf).

WhiteHorse IV Ltd., issued in January 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in
January 2014.

Ratings Rationale

The rating action is primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization (OC) ratios since April 2014. The Class A-1
notes have been paid down by $91.0 million, or 27.6%. Based on the
trustee's September 2014 report, which does not account for
payments made to the notes on the October payment date , the OC
ratios for Class A, B, C and D notes are reported at 131.14%,
119.93%, 113.52% and 108.27%, respectively, versus April 2014
levels of 123.40%, 115.35%, 110.59% and 106.60%, 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.

Moody's Adjusted WARF - 20% (2280)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: +2

Class C: +3

Class D: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3420)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: -1

Class B: -2

Class C: -1

Class D: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
WARF, 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 $348.8 million, defaulted par of $5.2 million, a
weighted average default probability of 19.0% (implying a WARF of
2850), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 49.7%, a
diversity score of 53 and a weighted average spread of 3.9%.

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.


ZOHAR III: S&P Lowers Rating on 4 Note Classes to 'B'
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on the
class A-1D, A-1R, A-1T, swingline, and A-2 notes from Zohar III
Ltd., a transaction of mainly middle-market loans from distressed
obligors managed by Patriarch Partners LLC.  At the same time, S&P
affirmed its 'CCC- (sf)' rating on the class A-3 notes.  Following
the downgrades and affirmation, S&P withdrew its ratings on all of
these classes.

The downgrades reflect several factors, including an increase in
the number of obligors with non-performing credit estimates since
S&P's July 2013 rating actions.  Since that time, S&P has lowered
its credit estimates for six obligors accounting for about 22% of
the total collateral to 'CC'.  Based on the Sept. 18, 2014,
trustee report, the transaction holds these six securities as
performing.  Further, S&P notes that several of the assets to
which it previously assigned a 'CC' credit estimate and treated as
defaulted for S&P's July 2013 rating actions are still carried as
performing assets by the trustee to calculate Zohar III's O/C
ratios, based on provisions in the transaction documents.

Notwithstanding the above, the level of defaults (as carried by
the transaction) increased, causing the O/C available to support
the notes to decrease.  Based on the Sept. 2014 trustee report,
the class A O/C ratio was 117.83% compared to 120.05% in the June
2013 report, which S&P referenced for its July 2013 rating
actions.

"Our internal policies require us to have a sufficient quantity of
information received on a timely basis to maintain our ratings.
Based on our assessment that we are no longer receiving this, we
withdrew our ratings on the transaction.  The majority of obligors
in Zohar III Ltd.'s collateral pool are not rated by Standard &
Poor's, but instead are credit-estimated to assess the collateral
supporting the transaction.  Our credit estimate analysis of the
underlying loans held in the transaction's portfolio is based on
audited financial statements that the collateral manager provides
for each company.  We generally require updated information
annually to maintain the credit estimate," S&P said.

Since July 2013, there has been a significant increase in assets
for which S&P has inadequate information.  At that time, there
were about eight obligors within the underlying pool
(approximately 24.1%) for which S&P did not have either a current
rating or credit estimate based on annually updated information.
As of Sept. 2014, there were 17 obligors within the underlying
pool without a current rating or credit estimate, representing
approximately 32.6% of the total assets in the underlying pool, or
about 48.5% of the performing assets.

The transaction also has extended the maturity dates of several of
the underlying assets.  In July 2013, approximately 4.9% of the
performing collateral pool was maturing on or within weeks of the
transaction's legal final maturity in April 2019.  Based on S&P's
current review, this number has increased to approximately 51.3%
of the performing collateral pool.  Though this transaction exited
its reinvestment period in March 2012, it has only incrementally
paid down the various class A-1 notes, pro rata.  After accounting
for the Sept. 2014 distribution, each of the class A-1 notes
stands at approximately 81.06% of its original balance.

RATINGS LOWERED AND WITHDRAWN

Zohar III Ltd.

Class       To         Interim rating    From
Swingline   NR         B (sf)            A-(sf)/Watch Neg
A-1D        NR         B (sf)            A-(sf)/Watch Neg
A-1R        NR         B (sf)            A-(sf)/Watch Neg
A-1T        NR         B (sf)            A-(sf)/Watch Neg
A-2         NR         CCC-(sf)          B-(sf)/Watch Neg

RATING AFFIRMED AND WITHDRAWN

Zohar III Ltd.

Class       To          From
A-3         NR          CCC-(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, Psyche A. Castillon, 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 202-362-8552.


                  *** End of Transmission ***