TCR_Public/141130.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, November 30, 2014, Vol. 18, No. 333

                            Headlines

1776 CLO I: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $16.5MM Class E Notes
ACIS CLO 2014-5: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E-2 Notes
AIRPLANES PASS THROUGH: Moody's Cuts Rating on A-9 Certs to Ca
ALESCO PREFERRED XI: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. B Notes to B1
ALM IV: S&P Raises Rating on Class F Notes to 'BB-'

AMERICAN CREDIT 2014-4: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on D Notes
AMERICREDIT AUTOMOBILE 2014-4: S&P Rates Class E Notes 'BB+'
AMERICREDIT AUTOMOBILE 2014-4: Fitch Rates Class E Notes 'BBsf'
ANCHORAGE CAPITAL 5: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating on Class F Notes
ANTHRACITE CDO I: Fitch Hikes Class F Debt Rating From 'BBsf'

ARES XXXII: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating on Class E Notes
BABSON CLO 2014-III: Moody's Rates $14MM Class F Notes 'B3'
BALLYROCK CLO 2014-1: Moody's Rates Class D Notes 'Ba3(sf)'
BANC OF AMERICA 2003-8: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 6 Tranches to B3
BANC OF AMERICA 2007-5: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on J Notes

BATTALION CLO VII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class D Notes
BEAR STEARNS 1996-06: Moody's Cuts Rating on Cl. B-4 Debt to C
BEAR STEARNS 2002-TOP6: Moody's Cuts Cl. X-1 Debt Rating to Caa1
BEAR STEARNS 2005-PWR10: S&P Lowers Rating on Class C Notes to D
C-BASS CBO IX: Moody's Hikes Rating on $12MM Cl. C Notes to Caa3

CANYON CAPITAL 2014-2: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class E Notes
CAPITAL ONE: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
CARLYLE MCLAREN: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Cl. B-2L Notes
CDGJ COMMERCIAL 2014-BXCH: S&P Prelim. Rates 2 Note Classes 'B-'
CG-CCRE COMMERCIAL: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on 3 Notes

CMLS ISSUER 2014-1: Fitch Expects to Class G Notes 'Bsf'
COMM 2005-LP5: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Class O Certificate
COMM 2014-CCRE20: Fitch to Rate $11.8MM Cl. F Certificates 'B-sf'
COMM 2014-FL5: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on Class HFL2 Notes
CREDIT SUISSE 2004-C3: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Rating on Class F Certs

CREDIT SUISSE 2006-C1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class H Notes to B-
CREST 2003-2: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on 2 Note Classes
CT CDO III: Fitch Lowers Class H Notes Rating to 'CCCsf'
FLAGSHIP CLO VIII: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
FMC REAL ESTATE 2005-1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on F Notes

FORT IRWIN 2005A: S&P Lowers Rating on Class III Bonds to BB+
GE COMMERCIAL 2005-C1: DBRS Confirms B Rating for Cl. E Securities
GMAC COMMERCIAL 2002-C3: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 3 Certs
GOLD KEY 2014-A: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class C Notes
HARBOURVIEW CLO VII: Moody's Rates $22MM Cl. E Notes 'Ba3'

HILDENE CLO III: Moody's Rates $5.5 Million Class F Notes '(P)B3'
HULL STREET: S&P Assigns B Rating on Class F Notes
I-PREFERRED TERM IV: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. D Notes to B3
JP MORGAN 2002-C3: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 2 Certificates
JP MORGAN 2004-CIBC9: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to B

JP MORGAN 2003-C1: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Certs to Caa3
JP MORGAN 2012-LC9: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class G Debt
JP MORGAN 2014-FL6: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on 4 Notes
KILIMANJARO RE 2014-2: S&P Assigns BB- Rating to Class C Notes
KODIAK CDO I: S&P Affirms CC Rating on 9 Note Classes

LB-UBS 2002-C4: Fitch Withdraws 'Dsf' Ratings on 4 Debt Classes
LB-UBS 2003-C1: Fitch Raises Class Q Certificates Rating to 'Bsf'
LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2004-C7: S&P Raises Rating on Class K Notes to B
LIMEROCK CLO III: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating on Class E Notes
LNR CDO 2002-1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 3 Note Classes

MAC CAPITAL: Moody's Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to Ba1
MADISON PARK VI: Moody's Raises Rating on Class E Notes to Ba1
MARATHON CLO: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class D Notes
MARATHON REAL 2006-1: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on 5 Cert. Classes
MCF CLO IV: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes

MERRILL LYNCH 2006-7: S&P Cuts Rating on Class A & B Certs to 'BB'
MERRILL LYNCH 2006-8: S&P Cuts Rating on Class A & B Certs to 'BB'
MERRILL LYNCH 2006-10: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
MERRILL LYNCH 2006-11: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
MERRILL LYNCH 2006-12: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'

MERRILL LYNCH 2007-2: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
MERRILL LYNCH 2007-3: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
MERRILL LYNCH 2007-4: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
MERRILL LYNCH 2007-5: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
MORGAN STANLEY 2011-C1: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on G Notes

MORGAN STANLEY 2006-HQ9: Fitch Cuts Class E Certs Rating to 'Bsf'
MORGAN STANLEY 2013-C13: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Class G Notes
N-STAR REL VI: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to B+
NEUBERGER BERMAN XVIII: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on D Notes
OFSI FUND III: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on 2 Note Classes

REALT 2007-2: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on Cl. K Certificates
SDART 2014-5: Moody's Rates on Class E Notes '(P)Ba2'
SDART 2014-5: Fitch to Assign BB Rating on Class E Notes
SEQUOIA MORTGAGE 2014-4: Fitch Rates Class B-4 Certificate 'BBsf'
SORIN REAL III: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 5 Note Classes

STARWOOD RETAIL 2014-STAR: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
SUGAR CREEK: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on $10.25MM Cl. E Notes
SYMPHONY CLO XV: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $12MM Cl. F Notes
TELOS CLO 2006-1: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. E Notes to Ba1
TRAPEZA CDO IV: Moody's Hikes Rating on $14MM Cl. D Notes to Caa3

UNISON GROUND 2013-1: Fitch Affirms BB- Rating on Class B Notes
WACHOVIA BANK 2002-C2: Moody's Cuts Cl. IO-I Debt Rating to Caa3
WACHOVIA BANK 2004-C11: S&P Affirms CCC Rating on Class J Notes
WASHINGTON MUTUAL 2005-C1: S&P Raises Rating on K Notes to BB+
WFRBS 2014-C24: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating on Class F Notes

* Moody's Takes Action on $309MM RMBS Issued by Various Trusts
* Moody's Takes Rating Action on $203MM RMBS Issued 2004 to 2007
* Moody's Takes Rating Action on $984MM RMBS Issued 1998 to 2006
* Moody's Raises Ratings on $411MM RMBS Issued 2003 to 2004
* S&P Puts Ratings on 213 Tranches on 60 CLO Deals on CreditWatch


                             *********

1776 CLO I: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $16.5MM Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by 1776 CLO I, Ltd.:

$27,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes, Due May 8, 2020, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on
June 6, 2013 Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

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

$50,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Revolving
Notes, Due May 8, 2020 (current balance of $24,695,757.72),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on June 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$296,500,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes, Due
May 8, 2020 (current balance of $146,445,843.29), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on June 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$33,500,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes, Due May
8, 2020, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on June 6, 2013 Upgraded
to Aaa (sf)

$35,500,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes, Due
May 8, 2020, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on June 6, 2013
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

$16,500,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes, Due
May 8, 2020; Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on June 6, 2013
Confirmed at Ba3 (sf)

1776 CLO I, Ltd., issued in April 2006, is a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior secured
loans with exposure to high yield bonds. The transaction's
reinvestment period ended in May 2012.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior note and an increase in the transaction's
overcollateralization (OC) ratios since November 2013. The Class
A-1 and Class A-2 notes have been paid down by approximately 25.9%
or $59.7 million since November 2013. Based on the trustee's
November 2014 report, the Class A/B, Class C, Class D, and Class E
OC ratios are reported at 157.15%, 138.97%, 120.62%, and 113.65%,
respectively, versus November 2013 levels of 144.10%, 130.75%,
116.55% and 110.95%, respectively.

The portfolio includes a number of investments in securities that
mature after the notes do (long-dated assets). Based on the
trustee's November 2014 report, long-dated assets currently make
up approximately $45.5 million or 13.9% of the portfolio, up from
$27.3 million or 7.1% in November 2013. These investments could
expose the notes to market risk in the event of liquidation when
the notes mature. Despite the increase in the Class D and Class E
OC ratios, Moody's affirmed the ratings on the Class D and Class E
notes 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% (1639)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: +2

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2459)

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 $311.1 million, defaulted
par of $11.5 million, a weighted average default probability of
12.75% (implying a WARF of 2049), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 45.41%, a diversity score of 26 and a weighted
average spread of 2.97%.

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.


ACIS CLO 2014-5: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E-2 Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to ACIS
CLO 2014-5 Ltd./ACIS CLO 2014-5 LLC's $457.75 million floating-
and fixed-rate notes.

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

Since S&P assigned its preliminary ratings to the transaction on
Sept. 18, 2014, the issuer split the class A and C notes into
classes A-1, A-2, C-1, and C-2 and combined classes D-1 and D-2
into the class D notes.  The class A-2 and C-2 notes are fixed-
rate notes.  The ratings reflect S&P's assessment of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the rated notes through
      the subordination of cash flows that are payable to the
      subordinated notes.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (not including excess spread), and cash flow structure,
      which can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation (CDO) criteria.

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

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

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- 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 preliminary ratings under
      various interest-rate scenarios, including LIBOR ranging
      from 0.2336%-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
      rated notes' outstanding balance.

RATINGS LIST

ACIS CLO 2014-5 Ltd./ACIS CLO 2014-5 LLC

                                     Amount
Class                Rating       (mil. $)
A-1                  AAA (sf)      280.75
A-2                  AAA (sf)       30.00
B                    AA (sf)        68.00
C-1                  A (sf)         25.00
C-2                  A (sf)          7.00
D                    BBB (sf)       26.00
E-1                  BB (sf)        10.50
E-2                  BB (sf)        10.50
Subordinated notes   NR             53.00

NR--Not rated.


AIRPLANES PASS THROUGH: Moody's Cuts Rating on A-9 Certs to Ca
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the rating of the
Subclass A-9 Certificates issued by Airplanes Pass Through Trust,
Series 2001 Refinancing Trust.

Issuer: Airplanes Pass Through Trust, Series 2001 Refinancing
Trust

Subclass A-9, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Oct 26, 2012
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The downgrade reflects Moody's increased loss expectation for this
bond, measured as a percentage of the outstanding Subclass A-9
bond balance. There is an ongoing litigation between Airplanes
Holdings Limited, a subsidiary of the issuer Airplanes Limited,
and Transbrasil, a former lessee, which could potentially require
litigation-related payment in the future. There have been
decisions both favorable and unfavorable to Airplanes Holdings
Limited and, as the case is ongoing, it is difficult to estimate
the extent of the potential payment, if any.

In October 2013, the Board increased the required maintenance
reserve amount from $110 million to $140 million due to their
expected worst case allocation of liability to Airplanes Holdings
in the Transbrasil litigation, the ongoing nature of the
litigation, and the absence of a concrete prospect of settlement
or resolution. Previously, in June 2012, the Board increased the
required maintenance reserve amount from $45 million to $110
million. The minimum principal payment to Subclass A-9 has been
suspended since October 2013, due to building up the maintenance
reserve to $140 million, and the minimum principal payment to
Subclass A-9 will resume once the maintenance reserve amount
requirement is met.

Using the most recent appraisal values (assuming 10% per annum
depreciation since the January appraisal) plus the accrued
maintenance reserve (after giving full credit to the reserve) as a
rough proxy for expected Subclass A-9 principal paydown,
noteholder recovery would be roughly half of the outstanding
Subclass A-9 balance.

Currently, there are twenty aircraft and one engine in the deal,
whereas, as of December 31, 2013, there were twenty eight aircraft
and two engines. As Airplanes Pass Through Trust continues to sell
aircraft, the expected Subclass A-9 paydown as a percent of
remaining outstanding bond balance will continue to decline. The
portfolio has a weighted average age of about 23 years. There are
six Airbus 320-200, two Boeing 737-300SF, six B737-400, one B767-
300ER, four Bombardier DHC8-300, one McDonnell Douglas MD83, and
one CFM56-3 engine, all manufactured between 1986 and 1993.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach To Pooled Aircraft-Backed Securitization" published in
March 1999.

Primary sources of uncertainty include the global economic
environment, aircraft lease income generating ability, aircraft
maintenance and other expenses to the trust, and valuation for the
aircraft backing the transaction.

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

Changes to aircraft values that differ from historical and current
trends. Concrete resolution or settlement from the Transbrasil
litigation. Passage of time, as the remaining expected Subclass A-
9 paydown decreases relative to the remaining Subclass A-9
outstanding balance, causing the remaining expected loss to
increase as a percentage of outstanding note balance.


ALESCO PREFERRED XI: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. B Notes to B1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by Alesco Preferred Funding XI, Ltd.:

$55,000,000 Class B Deferrable Third Priority Secured Floating
Rate Notes due December 23, 2036 (current balance of
$54,796,341.88, including deferred interest), Upgraded to B1
(sf); previously on October 17, 2013 Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

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

$174,000,000 Class A-1A First Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes due December 23, 2036 (current outstanding balance of
$120,205,869.06), Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on October 17,
2013 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

$176,000,000 Class A-1B First Priority Delayed Draw Senior
Secured Floating Rate Notes due December 23, 2036 (current
outstanding balance of $121,587,545.76), Affirmed Aa3 (sf);
previously on October 17, 2013 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

$95,000,000 Class A-2 Second Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes due December 23, 2036, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously
on October 17, 2013 Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Alesco Preferred Funding XI, Ltd., issued in June 2006, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank and
insurance trust preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
Class A-1A and A-1B notes, repayment of the Class B notes'
deferred interest, an increase in the transaction's
overcollateralization (OC) ratios and redemption of underlying
assets since December 2013.

The Class A-1A and A-1B notes have paid down by approximately
10.05% or $27.0 million since December 2013, using principal
proceeds from the redemption of underlying assets and the
diversion of excess interest proceeds. Additionally, on the June
2014 payment date, the deal passed its Class A OC test (whereas
previously it had been failing the test); thus $3.3 million of
interest proceeds were used to pay the current interest and most
of the deferred interest on the Class B notes. Nevertheless, on
the September 2014 payment date, the Class B notes resumed
deferring interest payments due to the failure of the Class A OC
test.

Based on Moody's calculations, the Class B notes' OC ratio has
improved to 123.36%, up from 117.04% in December 2013. Two assets
with a total par of $17.3 million have been redeemed since
December 2013, one of which had been deferring its interest
payments. Based on the trustee's September 2014 report, the Class
A and Class D notes' OC ratios are 138.35% (limit 140.91%) and
82.60% (limit 101.58%), versus 136.71% and 84.23% in December
2013.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool as having a performing par (after
treating deferring securities as performing if they meet certain
criteria) of $483.0 million, defaulted and deferring par of $32.0
million, a weighted average default probability of 11.37%
(implying a WARF of 1051), and a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 10.00%. In addition to the quantitative factors
Moody's explicitly models, qualitative factors are part of rating
committee considerations. Moody's considers the structural
protections in the transaction, the risk of an event of default,
recent deal performance under current market conditions, the legal
environment and specific documentation features. All information
available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts,
inputs from other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and
judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on
the transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs. The
simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks and insurance companies that
Moody's does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of
bank TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses
RiskCalc(TM),  an econometric model developed by Moody's
Analytics, to derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the
credit risk of most of the bank obligors in the pool relies on
FDIC Q2-2014 financial data. For insurance TruPS that do not have
public ratings, Moody's relies on the assessment of its Insurance
team, based on the credit analysis of the underlying insurance
firms' annual statutory financial reports.

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

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 606)

Class A-1A: +2

Class A-1B: +2

Class A-2: +3

Class B: +3

Class C-1: 0

Class C-2: 0

Class C-3: 0

Combination Notes: +1

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1693)

Class A-1A: -2

Class A-1B: -2

Class A-2: -3

Class B: -2

Class C-1: 0

Class C-2: 0

Class C-3: 0

Combination Notes: -1


ALM IV: S&P Raises Rating on Class F Notes to 'BB-'
---------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, D, E, and F notes from ALM IV, Ltd., a U.S. collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by Apollo Credit
Management LLC.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its rating on the
class A notes from the same transaction.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in July 2014, and it
is currently in its amortization period.  The upgrades reflect
paydowns of $10.14 million to the class A notes in the Oct. 2014
payment date, leaving the class at 96.31% of its original balance.
These paydowns led to increased overcollateralization (O/C) ratios
for each outstanding class.

The underlying transaction pool does not currently contain any
assets that mature after the legal final maturity of the
transaction or any defaulted assets.

The affirmation on the class A notes reflects the sufficient
credit support available to the class at its 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

ALM IV Ltd.

                          Cash flow        Cash flow
Class   Previous rating   implied rating   cushion(i)   Final
rating
A       AAA (sf)          AAA (sf)         25.01%       AAA (sf)
B       AA (sf)           AAA (sf)         4.50%        AAA (sf)
C       A (sf)            AA+ (sf)         5.37%        AA+ (sf)
D       BBB (sf)          A+ (sf)          6.41%        A+ (sf)
E       BB (sf)           BBB- (sf)        2.74%        BBB- (sf)
F       B (sf)            BB (sf)          0.34%        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.

                            Notional balance (mil. $)
Class                       Oct-11               Oct-14
A                           274.5                264.36
B                           58.5                 58.5
C                           29.81                29.81
D                           20.25                20.25
E                           23.63                23.63
F                           11.27                11.27

Coverage tests (%)
A/B O/C                     135.25               136.24
C O/C                       124.13               125.04
D O/C                       117.57               118.43
E O/C                       110.74               111.55
WAS (%)                     4..61                4.07

O/C--Overcollateralization.
WAS--Weighted average spread.

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

RATINGS LIST

ALM IV, Ltd.
US$461.307 mil floating rate notes

                     Rating      Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A       00163AAA8    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B       00163AAC4    AAA (sf)    AA (sf)
C       00163AAE0    AA+ (sf)    A (sf)
D       00163AAG5    A+ (sf)     BBB (sf)
E       00163BAA6    BBB- (sf)   BB (sf)
F       00163BAC2    BB- (sf)    B (sf)


AMERICAN CREDIT 2014-4: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to American Credit Acceptance Receivables Trust 2014-4's
$178 million asset-backed notes series 2014-4.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Nov. 14,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

   -- The availability of approximately 58.16%, 47.64%, 39.33%,
      and 36.16% of credit support for the class A, B, C, and D
      notes, respectively, based on break-even stressed cash flow
      scenarios (including excess spread), which provide coverage
      of more than 2.10x, 1.70x, 1.35x, and 1.25x S&P's 26.50%-
      27.50% expected net loss range for the class A, B, C, and D
      notes, respectively.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments made to the
      preliminary rated notes by the assumed legal final maturity
      dates under S&P's stressed cash flow modeling scenarios that
      S&P believes are appropriate for the assigned preliminary
      ratings.  S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB')
      stress scenario, the ratings on the class A and B notes
      would remain within one rating category of S&P's preliminary
      'AA (sf)' and 'A (sf)' ratings, and the ratings on the class
      C and D notes would remain within two rating categories of
      S&P's preliminary 'BBB (sf)' and 'BB (sf)' ratings.  These
      potential rating movements are consistent with S&P's credit
      stability criteria, which outline the outer bound of credit
      deterioration equal to a one-rating category downgrade
      within the first year for 'AA', and a two-rating category
      downgrade within the first year for 'A' through 'BB' rated
      securities under moderate stress conditions.

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

   -- The backup servicing arrangement with Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

   -- The transaction's payment and credit enhancement structures,
      which include performance triggers.

   -- The transaction's legal structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

American Credit Acceptance Receivables Trust 2014-4

Class  Rating    Type         Interest       Amount   Final
                              rate      (mil. $)(i)   maturity
A      AA (sf)   Senior       Fixed          101.45   7/10/18
B      A (sf)    Subordinate  Fixed           35.74   10/12/20
C      BBB (sf)  Subordinate  Fixed           28.91   10/12/20
D      BB (sf)   Subordinate  Fixed           12.09   2/10/22

(i) The actual size of these tranches will be determined on the
    pricing date.


AMERICREDIT AUTOMOBILE 2014-4: S&P Rates Class E Notes 'BB+'
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to
AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-4's $1.0 billion
automobile receivables-backed notes.

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

The ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 41.3%, 35.8%, 28.7%,
      22.0%, and 18.2% credit support for the class A-1, A-2-A, A-
      2-B, and A-3 (collectively, the class A notes), B, C, D, and
      E notes, respectively (based on stressed cash flow
      scenarios, including excess spread).  This provides coverage
      of more than 3.50x, 3.25x, 2.55x, 1.95x, and 1.58x S&P's
      10.25%-10.75% expected cumulative net loss range for the
      class A, B, C, D, and E notes, respectively.  These credit
      support levels are commensurate with the assigned 'A-1+
      (sf)' and 'AAA (sf)', 'AA+ (sf)', 'A+ (sf)', 'BBB+ (sf)',
      and 'BB+ (sf)' ratings on the class A, B, C, D, and E
      notes, respectively.

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate (or 'BBB') stress
      scenario, its ratings on the notes would not decline by more
      than one rating category (all else being equal) over a 12-
      month period.  S&P's ratings stability criteria describe the
      outer bound of credit deterioration within one year as one
      rating category in the case of 'AAA' and 'AA' rated
      securities, and two rating categories in the case of 'A',
      'BBB', and 'BB' rated securities.

   -- The credit enhancement in the form of subordination,
      overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess spread.
      The structure as priced has more excess spread and a smaller
      floating-rate tranche than the preliminary structure.

   -- The timely interest and ultimate principal payments made
      under the stressed cash flow modeling scenarios, which are
      consistent with the assigned ratings.

   -- The collateral characteristics of the securitized pool of
      subprime auto loans.

   -- General Motors Financial Co. Inc.'s (GM Financial, formerly
      known as AmeriCredit Corp.; BBB-/Stable/--) extensive
      securitization performance history since 1994.  On Sept. 25,
      2014, Standard & Poor's raised its long-term counterparty
      credit rating on GM Financial to 'BBB-' from 'BB' after
      designating the entity as a "core" subsidiary of General
      Motors Co.

   -- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-4

Class   Rating    Type       Interest   Amount  Legal final
                              rate(%) (mil. $)  maturity
A-1     A-1+ (sf) Senior         0.25   182.00  Dec. 8, 2015
A-2-A   AAA (sf)  Senior         0.72   166.00  April 9, 2018
A-2-B   AAA (sf)  Senior      1MLIBOR   166.00  April 9, 2018
                               + 0.40
A-3     AAA (sf)  Senior         1.27   198.17  July 8, 2019
B       AA+ (sf   Subordinate    1.87    76.71  Dec. 9, 2019
C       A+ (sf)   Subordinate    2.47    95.23  Nov. 9, 2020
D       BBB+ (sf) Subordinate    3.07    91.00  Nov. 9, 2020
E(i)    BB+ (sf)  Subordinate    3.66    24.89  March 8, 2022

(i) Class E is not being offered at this time and will initially
     be retained by the depositor or its affiliate.
1M--One month.


AMERICREDIT AUTOMOBILE 2014-4: Fitch Rates Class E Notes 'BBsf'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Outlooks for
the notes issued by AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust
(AMCAR) 2014-4:

$182,000,000 Class A-1 notes 'F1+sf';
$166,000,000 Class A-2A notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
$166,000,000 Class A-2B notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
$198,170,000 Class A-3 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
$76,710,000 Class B notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
$95,230,000 Class C notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
$91,000,000 Class D notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
$24,890,000 Class E notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Note: Classes A-2A and A-2B were previously labeled A-2A/B when
the expected ratings had been assigned on Nov. 7, 2014.

Key Rating Drivers

Marginally Stronger Credit Quality: The 2014-4 pool displays
stronger credit quality relative to the prior 2014 and 2013 pools
based on the WA Fair Isaac Corp. (FICO) score and Internal Credit
Tiers. However, extended term contracts continue to comprise the
majority of the pool at 89.9%. New vehicles total 48.0% of the
pool, relatively consistent with prior AMCAR transactions.

Sufficient Credit Enhancement: The cash flow distribution is a
sequential-pay structure. Initial hard credit enhancement (CE) is
consistent for Classes A, B and C although slightly higher for
Classes D and E relative to the prior 11 transactions. The reserve
is 2.00% (nondeclining) and initial overcollateralization (OC) is
5.50%, growing to a target of 14.50% of the outstanding pool
balance (less the required reserve amount for the distributing
period). Excess spread has decreased to 8.13% per annum.

Stable Portfolio/Securitization Performance: Losses on GM
Financial's managed portfolio and securitizations are stable and
relatively low, supported by the gradual economic recovery and
stable used vehicle values. The cumulative base case loss proxy
for this pool is 12.00%.

Stable Corporate Health: Fitch rates GM and GM Financial Company
Inc. 'BB+' with a Positive Rating Outlook. Fitch assessed the
potential impact of GM/GM-affiliated brand vehicle recalls in
relation to this transaction; Fitch expects this to have limited
to no impact on the 2014-4 pool.

Consistent Origination/Underwriting/Servicing: AFSI demonstrates
adequate abilities as originator, underwriter, and servicer as
evidenced by historical portfolio and securitization performance.
Fitch deems AFSI capable of adequately servicing this series.
Legal Structure Integrity: The legal structure of the transaction
should provide that a bankruptcy of GM Financial would not impair
the timeliness of payments on the securities.

Rating Sensitivities

Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults and loss
severity on defaulted receivables could produce loss levels higher
than the base case and could result in potential rating actions on
the notes. Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned
to each class of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-4
to increased losses over the life of the transaction. Fitch's
analysis found that each class of notes displays some sensitivity
to increased defaults and losses, with some classes showing
potential downgrades of up to two rating categories under Fitch's
moderate (1.5x base case loss) scenario. Some classes of notes
could experience downgrades of more than three rating categories
under Fitch's severe (2.5x base case loss) scenario.


ANCHORAGE CAPITAL 5: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by Anchorage Capital CLO 5, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$2,000,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2017
(the "Class X Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$305,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$57,500,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$30,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
A2 (sf)

$35,000,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

$30,000,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Ba3 (sf)

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

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

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.

Anchorage 5 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up
to 10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The underlying portfolio is expected to be
approximately 70% ramped as of the closing date.

Anchorage Capital Group, L.L.C. (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of
the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's 3.9 year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may purchase
additional collateral using principal proceeds from prepayments
and sales of credit risk obligations, subject to certain
conditions.

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: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 50

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3000

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.90%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.25%

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 3000 to 3450)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -2

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 3000 to 3900)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -4

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

Moody's V 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.


ANTHRACITE CDO I: Fitch Hikes Class F Debt Rating From 'BBsf'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one class issued by Anthracite CDO I
Ltd./Corp. (Anthracite CDO I).

Key Rating Drivers

The rating actions are a result of continued positive credit
migration and de-leveraging of the capital structure. Since
Fitch's last rating action in December 2013, approximately 42.9%
of the underlying collateral has been upgraded and 3.2% has been
downgraded. Currently, 51.1% of the portfolio has a Fitch derived
rating below investment grade and 31.7% has a rating in the 'CCC'
category and below, compared to 40.8% and 38%, respectively, at
the time of the last rating action. Over this period, the
transaction has received $32.6 million in paydowns. This resulted
in the full payment of the class D, D-FL, E and E-FL notes and
$7.7 million in pay down to the class F notes.

This transaction was analyzed under the framework described in the
report 'Global Rating Criteria for Structured Finance CDOs' using
the look-through analysis of 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. Additionally, a deterministic analysis was
performed where the recovery estimate on the distressed collateral
was modeled in accordance with the principal waterfall. An asset
by asset analysis was then performed for the remaining assets to
determine the collateral coverage for the remaining liabilities.
Based on this analysis, the class F notes have been upgraded given
that its balance is covered with equal or better than rated
underlying collateral.

Rating Sensitivities

The Stable Outlook on the class F notes reflects Fitch's view that
the transaction will continue to delever.

Anthracite CDO I is a static cash flow commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) that closed on May 29,
2002. The collateral is composed of 100% of commercial mortgage
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) from the 1998 through 2001
vintages.

Fitch has upgraded the following class as indicated below:

-- $36,144,088 class F to 'BBBsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Classes A-FL, B, B-FL, C, C-FL, D, D-FL, E and E-FL have been paid
in full.


ARES XXXII: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to six
classes of notes to be issued by Ares XXXII CLO Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$309,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$66,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$32,500,000 Class B Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2025 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$29,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2025 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$22,000,000 Class D Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2025 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$11,500,000 Class E Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2025 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B2 (sf)

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

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.

Ares XXXII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up
to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of loans that are not senior
secured loans. Moody's expect the portfolio to be approximately
67% ramped as of the closing date.

Ares CLO Management XXXII, L.P. (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: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2725

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.5%

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 2725 to 3134)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2725 to 3543)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -3

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.


BABSON CLO 2014-III: Moody's Rates $14MM Class F Notes 'B3'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced that it has assigned the
following ratings to notes issued by Babson CLO Ltd. 2014-III.

$4,000,000 Class X Senior Secured Term Notes due 2026 (the
"Class X Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$426,250,000 Class A Senior Secured Term Notes due 2026 (the
"Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$49,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Term Notes due 2026 (the
"Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$40,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Term Fixed Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2
  (sf)

$41,500,000 Class C-1 Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Term Notes
due 2026 (the "Class C-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

$13,000,000 Class C-2 Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Term Fixed
Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class C-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating
Assigned A2 (sf)

$29,500,000 Class D-1 Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Term Notes
due 2026 (the "Class D-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

$8,000,000 Class D-2 Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Term Notes due
2026 (the "Class D-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3
(sf)

$33,750,000 Class E-1 Secured Deferrable Junior Term Notes due
2026 (the "Class E-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3
(sf)

$2,500,000 Class E-2 Secured Deferrable Junior Term Notes due
2026 (the "Class E-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3
(sf)

$14,000,000 Class F Secured Deferrable Junior Term Notes due
2026 (the "Class F Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Class X Notes, Class A Notes, the Class B-1
Notes, the Class B-2 Notes, the Class C-1 Notes, the Class C-2
Notes, the Class D-1 Notes, the Class D-2 Notes, the Class E-1
Notes, the Class E-2 Notes, and the Class F Notes (collectively,
the "Rated Notes") address the expected losses posed to the
holders of the Rated Notes. The ratings reflect the risks due to
defaults on the underlying portfolio of loans, the transaction's
legal structure, and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

Babson CLO 2014-III is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien
senior secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio
must be invested in senior secured loans, cash and eligible
investments and up to 7.50% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans. The underlying collateral pool is
approximately 95% ramped as of the closing date.

Babson Capital Management LLC (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of collateral on behalf of
the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's four year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, purchases are permitted using
principal proceeds from unscheduled principal payments and
proceeds from sales of credit risk obligations, 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 of $700,000,000

Diversity of 55

WARF of 2790

Weighted Average Spread of 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon of 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate of 47.0%

Weighted Average Life of 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2790 to 3209)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -1

Class B-2 Notes: -1

Class C-1 Notes: -2

Class C-2 Notes: -2

Class D-1 Notes: -1

Class D-2 Notes: -1

Class E-1 Notes: 0

Class E-2 Notes: 0

Class F Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2790 to 3627)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C-1 Notes: -4

Class C-2 Notes: -4

Class D-1 Notes: -2

Class D-2 Notes: -2

Class E-1 Notes: -1

Class E-2 Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -3

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

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


BALLYROCK CLO 2014-1: Moody's Rates Class D Notes 'Ba3(sf)'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Ballyrock CLO 2014-1 Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$251,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$52,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$22,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

$23,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3
(sf)

$23,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3
(sf)

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

Ballyrock 2014-1 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured
corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist of
first lien senior secured loans, cash and eligible investments
representing principal proceeds and up to 10% of the portfolio may
consist of second lien loans and unsecured loans. The portfolio is
approximately 83% ramped as of the closing date.

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

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in February 2014.

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

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2700

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.65%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.5%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors That Would Lead to 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 2700 to 3105)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2700 to 3510)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

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

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


BANC OF AMERICA 2003-8: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 6 Tranches to B3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of 9 tranches
from two Banc of America transactions backed by Alt-A RMBS loans,
issued in 2003.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Banc of America Alternative Loan Trust 2003-5

Cl. 2-A-1, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012
Confirmed at Baa2 (sf)

Cl. PO, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. CB-1, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2011
Downgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Banc of America Alternative Loan Trust 2003-8

Cl. 2-NC-3, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. 2-NC-2, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. 2-NC-WIO, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. 3-A-1, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2011
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. 3-A-WIO, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012
Confirmed at B2 (sf)

Cl. PO, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The ratings downgraded are due to the weaker
performance of the underlying collateral and the erosion of
enhancement available for those bonds.

The rating actions also reflect updates and corrections to the
cash-flow models used by Moody's in rating these transactions. The
modeling changes pertain to the calculation of senior percentage,
loss allocation and loss reimbursement post subordination
depletion.

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 5.8% in October 2014 from 7.2%
in October 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6% to 7% 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.


BANC OF AMERICA 2007-5: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on J Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of Banc of America
Commercial Mortgage Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2007-5 (BACM 2007-5).

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations reflect the relatively stable performance of the
pool since Fitch's last rating action.  Fitch modeled losses of
19.1% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool
balance total 18.8%, including $105.3 million (5.7% of the
original pool balance) in realized losses incurred to date.  Fitch
has designated 25 loans (55% of the current pool) as Fitch Loans
of Concern, which includes seven specially serviced assets
(11.4%).  As of the Nov. 2014, distribution date, the pool's
aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 31.4% to $1.28
billion from $1.86 billion at issuance.  Four loans (4.3%) are
defeased.  Interest shortfalls are currently affecting classes E
through S.

The three largest contributors to Fitch modeled losses remain the
same as the last rating action.

The largest contributor to Fitch modeled losses is the Smith
Barney Building loan (7.8% of pool), which is secured by a 10-
story, 193,456 square foot (sf) office building located in the La
Jolla submarket of San Diego, CA.  The property's occupancy was
significantly impacted when the two largest tenants at issuance
vacated at their 2009 and 2010 lease expirations; however,
property performance rebounded in 2012 as the borrower was able to
sign a long term lease with the property's current largest tenant
through 2020 for 33% of the total property square footage.
Property occupancy was 99% as of the June 2014 rent roll compared
to 97% at year-end (YE) 2013, 95% at YE 2012, and a low of 67% at
YE 2011.  Lease rollover risk remains a concern as nearly 7% of
the square footage rolls in 2014, 30% in 2015, 22% in 2016, and 4%
in 2017.  Although Fitch has modeled losses on this loan, Fitch
anticipates property cash flow to improve as rolling leases in
2015 and 2016 may be signed at higher rates, many of which were
previously signed at below market rates.  The sponsor has
continued to come out of pocket to cover debt service shortfalls
since 2008.

The next largest contributor to Fitch modeled losses is the
specially-serviced, Green Oak Village Place asset (4.9%), a
315,094 sf lifestyle center located in Brighton, MI, about 40
miles northwest of Detroit.  The loan was first transferred to
special servicing in January 2009 for imminent default and
subsequently modified in Nov. 2009.  The borrower defaulted after
the modification and the loan was returned to the special servicer
in March 2012.  A foreclosure sale occurred in Oct. 2014, and the
borrower has a six month redemption period through April 2015.  As
of the Sept. 2014 rent roll, the property's occupancy was 82% with
moderate near-term lease rollover risk as 7% rolls in 2015 and 9%
in 2016.  Coldwater Creek (2% of the property sf), which closed
all of their retail locations, vacated prior to its scheduled
lease expiration in July 2014.  Old Navy (5% of the property sf),
which had a lease that expired in Oct. 2014, will remain in
occupancy until Jan. 2015 which will cause occupancy to drop to
77%.  The special servicer indicated that they will formulate a
workout strategy after the expiration of the redemption period.

The third largest contributor to Fitch modeled losses is the
Collier Center loan (11.3%), the largest loan in the pool, which
is secured by the leasehold interest in a 24-story, 567,163 sf
office tower located in downtown Phoenix, AZ.  The property is
part of a mixed-use development that consists of office, retail,
and restaurants.  As of the June 2014 rent roll, the property's
occupancy was 78% compared to 66% at YE 2013 and YE 2012, and 80%
at YE 2011.  The drop in occupancy between 2011 and 2012 was
primarily the result of the property's second largest tenant at
issuance (13% of property sf) vacating at lease expiration.  The
property has recently seen some positive leasing momentum as the
borrower signed two new tenants during 2014, one for 13% and
another for 4% of the property's square footage, both on long term
leases.  However, lease rollover risk remains a concern as nearly
10% rolls before the end of 2014, 2% in 2015, 6% in 2016, and 9%
in 2017.  Approximately 6% of the rollover occurring in 2014 is
associated with the GSA tenant, which has an upcoming December
2014 lease expiration.  The servicer did not provide an update on
the status.  The sponsor has continued to cover debt service
shortfalls out of pocket since 2012.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Rating Outlooks on classes A-3, A-SB, A-4, and A-1A remain Stable
due to sufficient credit enhancement and expected continued
paydown.  The Negative Outlook on class A-M reflects the
volatility surrounding the values and future losses on the
specially serviced assets.  In addition, various loans within the
top 15 have stressed loan to values in excess of 100%, which can
impact a loan's ability to refinance at maturity.  Furthermore,
although the Smith Barney Building loan is currently performing
and has a strong sponsor, class A-M may be subjected to future
downgrade if property-level cash flow does not improve by the
loan's maturity.  The distressed classes (those rated below 'Bsf')
may be subject to further downgrades as additional losses are
realized.

Fitch has affirmed these classes:

   -- $6.6 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $25.5 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $612 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $179 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $185.9 million class A-M at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $139.4 million class A-J at 'CCsf'; RE 15%;
   -- $20.9 million class B at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $13.9 million class C at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $20.9 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $18.6 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $11.6 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $18.6 million class G at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $20.9 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $1.6 million class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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


BATTALION CLO VII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Battalion CLO VII Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$252,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Aaa (sf)

$50,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Aa2 (sf)

$17,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
A2 (sf)

$28,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

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

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

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.

Battalion VII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured
corporate loans. At least 95% of the portfolio must consist of
first lien senior secured loans and eligible investments
representing principal proceeds and up to 5% of the portfolio may
consist of second lien loans and unsecured loans. The portfolio is
approximately 50% ramped as of the closing date.

Brigade Capital Management, 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 issued subordinated
notes. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage
tests which, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds
to pay down the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in February 2014.

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

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 47

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2816

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.75%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2816 to 3239 )

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2816 to 3661)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

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

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


BEAR STEARNS 1996-06: Moody's Cuts Rating on Cl. B-4 Debt to C
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of four
tranches and confirmed the rating of one tranche issued by Bear
Stearns Mtg Sec Inc 1996-06. The collateral backing this deal
primarily consists of first lien fixed rate "scratch and dent"
residential mortgages.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Bear Stearns Mtg Sec Inc 1996-06

X-1, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on Jun 12, 2014 Caa2 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

B-1, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jun 12, 2014 A3 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

B-2, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jun 12, 2014 Baa3 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

B-3, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 12, 2014 Caa3 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

B-4, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Jun 12, 2014 Ca (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pool and reflect Moody's updated loss expectation on
the pool. The ratings downgraded are a result of deteriorating
performance.

These five tranches were placed on review for possible downgrade
because delinquency information regarding this transaction had
been omitted from the monthly remittance reports furnished by the
trustee. Moody's has since obtained the missing delinquency
information from the servicer and has taken final action on these
bonds. The expected loss used in Moody's prior rating action on
June 28, 2013 for this transaction was understated since it did
not consider the actual delinquency experienced by the pool. This
has been corrected, and the ratings take into account the recent
pool performance.

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 5.8% in October 2014 from 7.2%
in October 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6 % to 7% 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.


BEAR STEARNS 2002-TOP6: Moody's Cuts Cl. X-1 Debt Rating to Caa1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on four
classes, downgraded the rating on one class, and affirmed the
rating on one class in Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities
Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-
TOP6 as follows:

Cl. F, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2013 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2013 Upgraded
to A2 (sf)

Cl. H, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2013 Upgraded to
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. J, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)
Cl. X-1, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2013
Affirmed B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on four P&I classes F through J were upgraded
primarily due to an increased credit support since Moody's last
review, resulting from amortization. The pool has paid down by 24%
since Moody's last review.

The rating on the P&I class K was affirmed because the rating is
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 0.4% of the
current balance compared to 0.5% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 1.8% of the
original pooled balance, the same as at the last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in April 2005, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.

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 BSCMS 2002-TOP6.

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

Where the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the November 17, 2014 payment date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 96% to $42.8
million from $1.12 billion at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by 16 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 51% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 74% of
the pool. The pool contains one loan, representing 51% of the
pool, that has an investment grade structured assessment. Four
loans, constituting 24% of the pool, have defeased and are secured
by US Government securities.

Three loans, constituting 7% 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.

Nine loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $20.0 million (for an average loss
severity of 39%). There are currently no loans in special
servicing.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 100% of the
pool and partial-year 2014 operating results for 85% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 37% compared to 39% 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 1.73X and 4.12X,
respectively, compared to 1.72X and 3.48X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The loan with a structured credit assessment is the Regent Court
Loan ($21.6 million -- 50.5% of the pool), which is secured by a
567,000 square foot (SF) Class A office building located in
Dearborn, Michigan. The property is 100% leased to the Ford Motor
Company. The loan is fully amortizing on a 15-year term. It has
amortized by 75% since securitization. Moody's current structured
credit assessment and stressed DSCR are aa3(sca.pd) and 3.66X,
respectively, compared to a1(sca.pd) and 2.86X at last review.

The top three conduit loans represent 13.5% of the pool. The
largest conduit loan is the McKee Commercial Center Loan ($2.5
million -- 5.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 23,000 SF
retail center built in 2001 and located in San Jose, California.
The loan is anchored by Walgreens. As of December 2013, property
was 100% leased, the same as last review. Performance has been
stable. The loan is fully amortizing and has amortized 46% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 45% and 2.38X,
respectively, compared to 50% and 2.16X at last review.

The second largest conduit loan is the Sylvan Square Shopping
Center Loan ($2.1 million -- 5.0% of the pool), which is secured
by a 80,000 SF shopping center located in Modesto, California. As
of June 2014 the property was 60% leased compared to 78% at last
review. Performance has declined due to higher vacancy. The loan
is fully amortizing and has benefited from 46% amortization since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 36% and 3.0X,
respectively, compared to 33% and 3.25X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Grossmont Estates Loan ($1.1 million
-- 2.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 94-unit multifamily
property located in La Mesa, California. As of June 2014 the
property was 99% leased compared to 98% at last review.
Performance has been stable. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 26%
and 3.89X, respectively, compared to 25% and 3.73X at last review.


BEAR STEARNS 2005-PWR10: S&P Lowers Rating on Class C Notes to D
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on the class
C commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Bear Stearns
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-PWR10, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction, to 'D (sf)' from
'CCC- (sf)'.

"We lowered our rating to 'D (sf)' on the class C certificates
following principal losses detailed in the Nov. 12, 2014, trustee
remittance report.  The reported principal losses totaled $114.6
million, which primarily resulted from the liquidations of the
four specially serviced assets (totaling $162.8 million) with C-
III Asset Management LLC: the Oasis Net Leased Portfolio real
estate-owned (REO) asset ($95.6 million beginning balance), the
College Square Mall loan ($32.5 million), the Embassy Crossing
loan ($31.3 million), and the Fletcher Heights Plaza - Peoria, AZ
REO asset ($3.4 million).  According to the Nov. 2014 trustee
remittance report, the four assets liquidated at a weighted
average loss severity of 70.4% of their beginning scheduled trust
balances at the time of liquidation.  Consequently, class C
experienced a 23.1% loss of its $29.6 million original principal
balance, while the subordinate classes D, E, F, G, and H lost 100%
of their beginning principal balances.  We previously lowered our
ratings on classes D, E, F, G, and H to 'D (sf)'," S&P said.

RATINGS LIST

Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-PWR10
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2005-PWR10

                                 Rating         Rating
Class         Identifier         To             From
C             07387BEG4          D (sf)         CCC- (sf)


C-BASS CBO IX: Moody's Hikes Rating on $12MM Cl. C Notes to Caa3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on notes issued
by C-BASS CBO IX Limited:

  $10,000,000 Class B Third Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate
  Notes, Due 2039 (current outstanding balance of $9,388,820),
  Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on March 20, 2014 Upgraded to
  Caa2 (sf)

  $12,000,000 Class C Fourth Priority Secured Floating Rate
  Deferrable Interest Notes Due April 2039, Upgraded to Caa3
  (sf); previously on September 24, 2013 Upgraded to Ca (sf)

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are due primarily to the deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since March 2014. The Class A-2 Notes
have been paid down in full and Class B notes have been paid down
by approximately $0.6 million or 7% since that time. Based on
Moody's calculation, the OC ratios for the Class B and Class C
notes are currently at 222.2% and 97.5%, respectively, versus
151.7% and 81.4% in March 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) Recovery of defaulted assets: The amount of recoveries received
from defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that
Moody's assumes as having defaulted as well as the timing of these
recoveries create additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed
defaulted assets assuming no recoveries, and therefore,
realization of any recoveries in the future would positively
impact the notes' ratings.

4) 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 a individual scenario analysis.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis

Moody's applies a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) 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(TM)
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 on all of the rated notes (by
the difference in the number of notches versus the current model
output, for which a positive difference corresponds to lower
expected loss):

Ba1 and below ratings notched up by two rating notches:

Class B: +3

Class C: +1

Class D: 0

Ba1 and below ratings notched down by two notches:

Class B: -3

Class C: 0

Class D: 0


CANYON CAPITAL 2014-2: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 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 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 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 criteria.

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

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

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- S&P's projections regarding the timely interest and ultimate
      principal payments on the rated notes, which S&P assessed
      using its cash flow analysis and assumptions commensurate
      with the assigned ratings under various interest-rate
      scenarios, including LIBOR ranging from 0.2316%-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.

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                         40.27

NR--Not rated.


CAPITAL ONE: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B and C notes from Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust's card
series.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A
and D notes.  The rating actions follow the increased credit
enhancement for the class A, B, and C notes in the trust.

Capital One increased the credit enhancement for the class A, B,
and C notes by modifying the definition of the Required
Subordinated Percentage of the class B, C and D notes (see table 1
for the amount of credit enhancement previously and currently
available).

The upgrades reflect S&P's view that the increased credit
enhancement available to the class B and C notes exceeds the
credit support that S&P deems necessary to support the previous
rating levels.

S&P's rating actions reflect its forward-looking view and the
application of its credit card criteria to consider the additional
credit support that Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust
provided.  S&P's credit analysis included a quantitative and
qualitative review of the pool performance and each performance
variable (loss rate, yield, payment rate, etc.), the collateral
quality, and the originator's and servicer's general operations.
S&P has not changed its base-case assumptions or stresses for the
performance variables since its last review.

The affirmations on the class A notes reflect S&P's view that the
additional credit support continues to support the current rating
levels.  The affirmation on the class D notes reflects S&P's view
that the class D enhancement levels, which did not change,
continue to be sufficient to support the current rating.

Table 1
              New credit       Previous credit
Class     enhancement level   enhancement level
A                    21.00%              17.00%
B                    12.00%               8.00%
C                     3.00%               1.00%
D                     0.00%               0.00%

S&P will continue to monitor the performance of the credit card
receivables backing these transactions relative to S&P's ratings
and the trust's available credit enhancement.

RATINGS RAISED

Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust
Card series

               Rating      Rating
Class          To          From
B(2004-3)      AA (sf)     A+ (sf)
B(2005-1)      AA (sf)     A+ (sf)
B(2005-3)      AA (sf)     A+ (sf)
B(2006-1)      AA (sf)     A+ (sf)
B(2007-1)      AA (sf)     A+ (sf)
C(2007-1)      BBB+ (sf)   BBB (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust
Card series

Class             Rating
A(2005-9)         AAA (sf)
A(2006-11)        AAA (sf)
A(2006-3)         AAA (sf)
A(2007-1)         AAA (sf)
A(2007-2)         AAA (sf)
A(2007-5)         AAA (sf)
A(2007-7)         AAA (sf)
A(2013-1)         AAA (sf)
A(2013-2)         AAA (sf)
A(2013-3)         AAA (sf)
A(2014-1)         AAA (sf)
A(2014-2)         AAA (sf)
A(2014-3)         AAA (sf)
A(2014-4)         AAA (sf)
A(2014-5)         AAA (sf)
D(2002-1)         BB (sf)


CARLYLE MCLAREN: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Cl. B-2L Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Carlyle McLaren CLO, Ltd.:

$40,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due February 27,
2021, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on September 1, 2011
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

$28,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due February 27,
2021, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on September 1, 2011
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

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

$333,000,000 Class A-1L Floating Rate Notes Due February 27,
2021 (current outstanding balance of $252,366,554), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on September 1, 2011 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

$60,000,000 Class A-1LV Floating Rate Revolving Notes Due
February 27, 2021 (current outstanding balance of $45,471,451),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on September 1, 2011 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

$22,000,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due February 27,
2021, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on September 1, 2011
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

$20,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due February 27, 2021
(current outstanding balance of $19,025,772), Affirmed Ba3 (sf);
previously on September 1, 2011 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Carlyle McLaren CLO Ltd., issued in July 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in
August 2013.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since February 2014. The Class A-1L and
A-1LV notes have been paid down by approximately 23.7% or $92.3
million since February 2014. Based on the trustee's October 2014
report, the over-collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class A-1,
Class A-2L, Class A-3L, Class B-1L and Class B-2L notes are
reported at 139.9%, 123.3%, 113.9%, 107.4% and 102.4%,
respectively, versus February 2014 levels of 133.5%, 120.5%,
112.8%, 107.4% and 103.2%, respectively.

The deal has benefited from an improvement in the credit quality
of the portfolio since February 2014. Based on the trustee's
October 2014 report, the weighted average rating factor is
currently 2505 compared to 2597 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) Long-dated assets: The presence of assets that mature after the
CLO's legal maturity date exposes the deal to liquidation risk on
those assets. This risk is borne first by investors with the
lowest priority in the capital structure. Moody's assumes that the
terminal value of an asset upon liquidation at maturity will be
equal to the lower of an assumed liquidation value (depending on
the extent to which the asset's maturity lags that of the
liabilities) or the asset's current market value.

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

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2152)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LV: 0

Class A-2L: +1

Class A-3L: +2

Class B-1L: +2

Class B-2L: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3227)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LV: 0

Class A-2L: -2

Class A-3L: -2

Class B-1L: -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.

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 $415 million, defaulted par
of $8.5 million, a weighted average default probability of 19.66%
(implying a WARF of 2689), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 50.11%, a diversity score of 58 and a weighted average
spread of 3.15%.

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.


CDGJ COMMERCIAL 2014-BXCH: S&P Prelim. Rates 2 Note Classes 'B-'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to CDGJ Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-BXCH's $1.441
billion commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2014-
BXCH.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by two two-year, floating-rate
commercial mortgage loans totaling $1.441 billion, with three one-
year extension options.  The Portfolio A mortgage loan is secured
by the fee and leasehold interests in 61 hotel properties (two
full-service, 43 limited-service, and 16 extended-stay).  The
Portfolio B mortgage loan is secured by the fee and leasehold
interests in 37 hotel properties (12 full-service, 20 limited-
service, and five extended-stay).

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Nov. 14,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's
historical and projected performance, the sponsors' and managers'
experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loans' terms, and
the transaction's structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

CDGJ Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-BXCH

  Class         Rating(i)            Amount ($)
  A             AAA (sf)            489,100,000
  X-CP          A- (sf)             781,100,000(ii)
  X-EXT         A- (sf)             781,000,000(ii)
  B             AA- (sf)            167,500,000
  C             A- (sf)             124,500,000
  D-PA(iii)     BBB- (sf)           102,200,000
  E-PA(iii)     BB- (sf)            147,800,000
  F-PA(iii)     B- (sf)             122,200,000
  D-PB(iii)     BBB- (sf)            77,200,000
  E-PB(iii)     BB- (sf)            111,600,000
  F-PB(iii)     B- (sf)              98,900,000

  (i) The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
      institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the
      Securities Act of 1933.
(ii) Notional balance.  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 underlying referenced principal certificates.
(iii) Loan-specific class.


CG-CCRE COMMERCIAL: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on 3 Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to CG-CCRE Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-FL2's $512.0
million commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by six floating-rate loans secured
by the fee interest in a regional mall and power center known as
South Towne Center in Sandy, Utah, the fee interest in the Curtis
Center office building in Philadelphia, the fee interest in the
Colonie Center regional mall in Albany, N.Y., the fee interest in
the Hotel Martha Washington in New York City, the fee interest in
the Regions Tower office building in Indianapolis, and the fee
interest in the Sheraton Station Square in Pittsburgh.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Nov. 20,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's
historical and projected performance, the sponsors' and managers'
experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loans' terms, and
the transaction's structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

CG-CCRE Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-FL2

Class            Rating(i)          Amount ($)
A                AAA (sf)          282,486,000
X-CP             BBB- (sf)     410,203,000(ii)
X-EXT            BBB- (sf)     410,203,000(ii)
B                AA- (sf)           52,159,000
C                A (sf)             34,594,000
D                A- (sf)            15,511,000
E                BBB- (sf)          25,453,000
STC1(iii)        BBB- (sf)          17,674,000
STC2(iii)        BB (sf)            15,519,000
STC3(iii)        BB- (sf)              221,000
CURT(iii)        BBB- (sf)          11,789,000
COL1(iii)        BBB- (sf)           5,669,000
COL2(iii)        BB- (sf)           13,834,000
COL3(iii)        B- (sf)            13,391,000
COL4(iii)        NR                  3,422,000
RGN1(iii)        BBB- (sf)           3,787,000
RGN2(iii)        BB- (sf)            6,586,000
SSS1(iii)        BBB- (sf)           1,176,000
SSS2(iii)        BB- (sf)            8,729,000

  (i) The certificates will be issued to qualified institutional
      buyers according to Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933.
(ii) Notional balance.
(iii) Loan-specific class.


CMLS ISSUER 2014-1: Fitch Expects to Class G Notes 'Bsf'
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on the CMLS Issuer
Corp.'s (CMLSI) commercial mortgage pass-through certificates,
series 2014-1.

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

   -- $136,155,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $109,629,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $6,029,000 class B 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $8,866,000 class C 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $8,512,000 class D 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $3,547,000 class E 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $2,837,000 class F 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $2,837,000 class G 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

All currencies are in Canadian dollars (CAD).

Fitch does not expect to rate the $283,734,078 (notional balance)
interest-only class X, or the $5,322,078 non-offered class H.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership in the trust,
primary assets of which are 37 Canadian loans secured by 41
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
approximately $283.7 million as of the cutoff date. The loans were
originated or acquired by CMLS Financial Assets LP, CMLS Financial
Ltd., and First National Financial LP.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 75.2% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 100%, and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

The transaction has a Fitch stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) of 1.16x, a Fitch stressed loan-to-value (LTV) of 102.2%,
and a Fitch debt yield of 9.4%. Fitch's aggregate net cash flow
represents a variance of 4.8% to issuer cash flows.

Key Rating Drivers

Canadian Loan Attributes and Historical Performance: The ratings
reflect strong historical Canadian commercial real estate loan
performance, including a low delinquency rate and low historical
losses of less than 0.1%, as well as positive loan attributes,
such as short amortization schedules, recourse to the borrower,
and additional guarantors.

Fitch Leverage: The pool has a Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.16x and
102.2%, respectively, which represents slightly lower leverage
than recent Canadian multiborrower deals. The Real-T 2014-1 deal
had a Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.15x and 110.2%, respectively, and
the IMSCI 2014-5 deal had a Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.16x and 98.2%.
The leverage is also slightly lower than the third-quarter 2014
year-to-date average for U.S. CMBS, which had an LTV of 106.9%.

Significant Amortization: The pool has a weighted average
amortization term of 24.8 years, which represents faster
amortization than U.S. conduit loans. There are no partial or full
interest-only loans. The pool's maturity balance represents a
paydown of 24.1% of the closing balance and 25.7% from the
original loan balance.

Loans with Recourse: Of the pool, 82.6% of the loans feature full
or partial recourse to the borrowers and/or sponsors. This
represents slightly less recourse than the Real-T 2014-1 (91.2%)
and the IMSCI 2014-5 (84.9%) transactions.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch performed two model-based break-even analyses to determine
the level of cash flow and value deterioration the pool could
withstand prior to $1 of loss being experienced by the 'BBB-sf'
and 'AAAsf' rated classes. Fitch found that the CMLSI 2014-1 pool
could withstand a 46.6% decline in value (based on appraised
values at issuance) and an approximately 18.3% decrease to the
most recent actual cash flow prior to experiencing a $1 of loss to
the 'BBB-sf' rated class. Additionally, Fitch found that the pool
could withstand a 51.9% decline in value and an approximately
26.3% decrease in the most recent actual cash flow prior to
experiencing $1 of loss to any 'AAAsf' rated class.

Key Rating Drivers and Rating Sensitivities are further described
in the accompanying presale report.

The master and special servicer is CMLS Financial Limited, which
has a master servicer rating of 'CMS3-'. CMLS Financial Limited
has a loan-level special servicing rating of 'CLLSS3' by Fitch and
was deemed acceptable as the special servicer for this
transaction.


COMM 2005-LP5: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Class O Certificate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on five classes
and affirmed the ratings on 11 classes in COMM 2005-LP5 Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates as follows:

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

Cl. B, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. D, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Upgraded
to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. F, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

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

Cl. J, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

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

Cl. X-C, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the five P&I classes were upgraded due to an
increase in credit support since Moody's last review, resulting
from paydowns and amortization, as well as Moody's expectation of
additional increases in credit support resulting from the payoff
of loans approaching maturity that are well positioned for
refinance. The pool has paid down by 15% since Moody's last
review. In addition, loans constituting 78% of the pool that have
debt yields exceeding 10.0% are scheduled to mature within the
next six months.

The ratings on the P&I classes A-1A through B and classes H and J
were affirmed because the transaction's key metrics, including
Moody's loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service
coverage ratio (DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index
(Herf), are within acceptable ranges. The ratings on the P&I
classes K through O 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 4.4% of the
current balance compared to 3.7% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is 2.9% of the original
pooled balance, which is the same as at last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action
The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published September 2000
and "Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 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 COMM 2005-LP5.

Description Of Models Used

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

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 15 compared to 20 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance
As of the November 10, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 59% to $695 million
from $1.7 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 97 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 13% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 42% of
the pool. Thirteen loans, constituting 27% of the pool, have
defeased and are secured by US government securities.

Twenty-one loans, constituting 26% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist as of the most recent distribution date. The
watchlist includes loans that meet certain portfolio review
guidelines established as part of the CRE Finance Council (CREFC)
monthly reporting package. As part of Moody's ongoing monitoring
of a transaction, the agency reviews the watchlist to assess which
loans have material issues that could affect performance.

Twelve loans have been liquidated at a loss from the pool,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $18 million (for an
average loss severity of 10%). Four loans, constituting 3% of the
pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest specially
serviced loan is the Meridian Place Apartments Loan ($11 million -
- 1.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 232 unit multifamily
complex located in Tallahassee, Florida. The loan transferred to
special servicing in September 2010 and has been REO since January
2012. The property was 93% leased as of September 2014 compared to
91% as of October 2013. The servicer intends to stabilize and
reposition the asset by second-quarter 2016.

The remaining three specially serviced loans are secured by an
office, retail and manufactured housing community. Moody's
estimates an aggregate $9 million loss for the specially serviced
loans (53% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for four poorly
performing loans, constituting 3% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $3 million (a 15% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 94% of the
pool and partial year 2014 operating results for 91% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 93% compared to 87% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes the
defeased, specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash
flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 9% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.1%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.37X and 1.15X,
respectively, compared to 1.52X and 1.28X 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 28% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Bank of America Tower at Las Olas Centre Loan
($90 million -- 12.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 409,000
square foot (SF) Class A office and retail building located in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The property was 97% leased as of August
2014 compared to 95% as of January 2013. Loan repayment is
interest only for its entire term. The loan matures in April 2015.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 93% and 1.08X, respectively,
compared to 100% and 1.0X at the last review.

The second largest conduit loan is the Lakeside Mall Loan ($77
million -- 11.1%), which represents a pari-passu interest in a
$155 million first mortgage. The mortgage is secured by the
borrower's interest in a 1.5 million SF regional mall located in
Sterling Heights, Michigan. The mall is anchored by a Sears,
Macy's, Macy's Men's and Home Store, Lord and Taylor and J.C.
Penney. Macy's Men and Home store is the only anchor tenant that
is part of the 643,000 SF portion of the mall that serves as
collateral. The total mall was 92% leased as of September 2014,
while the inline space was only 79% leased, with and only 69%
leased to permanent tenants. In-line sales have declined since
securitization. Reported inline sales at securitization were $402
per square foot (PSF). Inline sales for 2012 were only $375 PSF
and inline sales further declined to $359 PSF in 2013. Although
the mall maintains all its anchor tenants and is owned by GGP, an
experienced mall operator, the low inline occupancy and declining
inline sales is concerning. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 110%
and 0.88X, respectively, compared to 109% and 0.89X at the last
review.

The third largest conduit loan is the 1156 Avenue of the Americas
Loan ($30 million -- 4.3%), which is secured by an 80,000 SF
office located in Midtown Manhattan. The property was 97% leased
as of June 2014. Leases for approximately 30% of property expire
by the end of 2016. The loan has amortized 15% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 90% and 1.05X,
respectively, compared to 93% and 1.02X at last review.


COMM 2014-CCRE20: Fitch to Rate $11.8MM Cl. F Certificates 'B-sf'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 multi-borrower 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-'.


COMM 2014-FL5: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on Class HFL2 Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to COMM 2014-FL5 Mortgage Trust's $557.1 million
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by six floating-rate loans secured
by the fee interest in 20 limited-service, extended-stay, select-
service, and full-service hotels called the K Hospitality
Portfolio, the fee interest in 16 skilled nursing and assisted
living facilities called the Sava II Portfolio, the fee and
leasehold interest in the Hilton Fort Lauderdale hotel, the fee
interest in a suburban office property called Park Central, the
fee and leasehold interest in the Marriott Fairview Park hotel,
and the fee and/or leasehold interest in 10 office, retail, and
parking garage properties called the Peachtree Center Portfolio.
The Sava II Portfolio loan is not pooled.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Nov. 18,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect Standard & Poor's view of the
collateral's historical and projected performance, the sponsors'
and managers' experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the
loans' terms, and the transaction's structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

COMM 2014-FL5 Mortgage Trust

Class         Rating(i)           Amount ($)
A             AAA (sf)           210,399,000
X-CP(ii)      BBB- (sf)          377,863,000(ii)
X-EXT(ii)     BBB- (sf)          377,863,000(ii)
B             AA- (sf)            60,706,000
C             A (sf)              31,547,000
D             BBB- (sf)           75,211,000
KH1(iii)      BB- (sf)            32,750,000
KH2(iii)      B (sf)              21,045,200
HFL1(iii)     BB- (sf)            16,772,000
HFL2(iii)     B- (sf)             11,959,000
MFP1(iii)     BB- (sf)            10,375,000
MFP2(iii)     B (sf)               5,098,000
PC1(iii)      BB- (sf)             9,197,000
PC2(iii)      B (sf)               3,390,000
PCH(iii)      BB (sf)              8,632,000
SV1(iii)      AAA (sf)            25,622,000
SV-X-CP(ii)   BBB- (sf)           60,000,000(ii)
SV-X-EXT(ii)  BBB- (sf)           60,000,000(ii)
SV2(iii)      AA (sf)             10,018,000
SV3(iii)      A (sf)              10,365,000
SV4(iii)      BBB- (sf)           13,995,000

  (i) The certificates will be issued to qualified institutional
      buyers according to Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933.
(ii) Notional balance.
(iii) Loan-specific class.


CREDIT SUISSE 2004-C3: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Rating on Class F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded two classes and affirmed three
remaining classes of Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
Securities Corporation's commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2004-C3.

Key Rating Drivers

The downgrades reflect the greater certainty of realized losses
given the significant percentage of the pool that is in special
servicing (95%), 78% of which is real estate owned (REO). The
affirmation of class C reflects the high credit enhancement and
likely continued principal paydown. The Outlook was revised to
Negative, however, due to concerns as to the lengthy time until
this class may be paid off and the lack of progress in disposing
of the specially serviced assets.

As of the October 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 94.7% (including 5.5% of
realized losses) to $66.4 million from $1.64 billion at issuance.
Since the last rating action in April 2014, approximately $393
million in paydown has occurred mostly from maturing loans. Fitch
has designated 14 loans (95.8%) of the remaining 15 as Fitch Loans
of Concern, which includes 13 specially serviced assets (95%). The
non-specially serviced loans have maturity dates in June 2019
(4.2%) and February 2024 (0.8%).

The pool is now undercollateralized as the aggregate balance of
the certificates has become $19.7 million greater than the
aggregate pool balance. This disparity of principal balances is
due to the servicer recovering Workout-Delayed Reimbursement
Amounts (WODRA) from the transaction's principal collections, and
per the transaction documents, the subordinate certificates are
not written down. Fitch is anticipating that the $19.7 million
difference will ultimately result in realized losses. Interest
shortfalls in the amount of $11.9 million are currently affecting
classes D through P.

The largest contributor to expected losses is an 184,616 square
foot office property in Danvers, MA, 20 miles north of Boston
(25.7% of the pool). The loan transferred to special servicing in
February 2009 upon the borrower's request for an extension of the
maturity date. In May 2013 the lender took title of the property
through foreclosure and the property became REO. The servicer-
reported occupancy at the property is 92%, with the largest
tenant, Copyright Clearance Corporation (55% of net rentable area
[NRA]) holding a lease through April 2024. Extensive renovations
including the building lobby, parking lot, gym, and HVAC systems
have been completed. Since the previous review in April 2014 the
servicer recouped approximately $10.8 million from the
transaction's principal collections, reducing the total loan
exposure from $28.1 million to $17.3 million. The property is
currently being marketed for sale.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a 270-unit
multifamily property in Palm Bay, FL (16.7 % of the pool). The
loan transferred to the special servicer in December 2008 for
payment default and became REO in July 2011. The servicer-reported
occupancy was 98% as of September 2014, up from 87% in January
2014 and a significant increase from October 2011 at 66%.
Currently, the property is undergoing deferred maintenance repairs
including gutters and leveling the grade around each building to
alleviate a drainage problem affecting the foundation and building
siding. Since the previous review in April 2014 the servicer
recouped approximately $2.1 million from the transaction's
principal collections, reducing the total loan exposure from $15.5
million to $13.4 million. The property has not yet been marketed
for sale.

Rating Sensitivities

The Rating Outlook on class C is revised to Negative due to the
concentration of REO and specially serviced assets, as well as
concerns with the timing of future principal payments given the
transaction's WODRA and lack of progress on the specially serviced
assets. Downgrades to class C are possible if expected losses
increase or it is determined that the likelihood of full payoff is
reduced. Downgrades to the distressed classes (those rated below
'B') are likely as losses are realized on specially serviced
loans.

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

-- $28.7 million class D to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf', RE 5%;
-- $16.4 million class E to 'Csf' from 'CCsf', RE 0%.

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

-- $12.2 million class C at 'BBB-sf', Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $20.5 million class F at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $8.9 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 O at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

The class A1 through A-5, A-1-A and B certificates have paid in
full. Fitch does not rate the class N and P certificates. Fitch
previously withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class A-X and
A-SP certificates.


CREDIT SUISSE 2006-C1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class H Notes to B-
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on three
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2006-C1, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  In
addition, S&P affirmed its ratings on 12 other classes.

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 assets in the pool, the transaction's
structure, and the liquidity available to the trust.

S&P lowered its ratings on classes F, G, and H to reflect the
credit support erosion that S&P anticipates will occur upon the
eventual resolution of eight ($56.7 million, 2.9%) of the nine
assets ($59.7 million, 3.1%) with the special servicer.

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
collateral's current and future performance, the transaction
structure, and liquidity support available to the classes.

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

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Oct. 20, 2014, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $1.95 billion, which is 64.9% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 321 loans and three real
estate-owned (REO) assets (reflecting cross-collateralized and
cross-defaulted loans), down from 417 loans at issuance.  Nine of
these assets ($59.7 million, 3.1%) are with the special servicer,
17 ($216.2 million, 11.1%) are defeased, and 97 ($530.8 million,
27.2%) are on the master servicers' combined watchlist.  The
master servicers, KeyBank N.A., Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC,
and NCB, FSB reported financial information for 94.6% of the
nondefeased loans in the pool,of which 84.6% was year-end 2013
data.

S&P calculated a 1.24x Standard & Poor's weighted average debt
service coverage(DSC) and 81.6% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio using a
7.65% Standard & Poor's weighted average capitalization rate.  The
DSC and LTV calculations exclude the nine specially serviced
assets ($59.7 million, 3.1%), 17 defeased loans ($216.2 million,
11.1%), and three subordinate B hope notes ($12.0 million, 0.6%).
The top 10 nondefeased loans have an aggregate outstanding pool
trust balance of $489.9 million (25.1%).  Using servicer-reported
numbers, S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average DSC
and LTV of 1.14x and 91.2%, respectively, for the top 10
nondefeased loans.

To date, the transaction has experienced $66.5 million in
principal losses, or 2.2% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 3.5% 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 eight of the nine specially serviced assets.

The properties securing the underlying loans are concentrated
within the San Diego-Carlsbad, Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,
and Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs).  Standard & Poor's U.S. Public Finance Group provides
credit ratings on San Diego County, Fairfax County, and Multnomah
County, which participate within those MSAs

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Oct. 20, 2014, trustee remittance report, 10 assets
($62.9 million, 3.2%) in the pool were reported to be in special
servicing.  The special servicer, Situs Holdings LLC (Situs),
confirmed that the Ashley Oaks Shopping Center loan is not in
special servicing. Details of the two largest specially serviced
assets are:

   -- The Embassy Suites Phoenix ($16.4 million, 0.8%) is the
      largest specially serviced asset in the pool, with a total
      reported exposure of $19.9 million.  The loan is secured by
      a 314-room hotel located in Phoenix.  The loan was
      transferred to Situs on July 3, 2012, and became REO on
      June 5, 2013.  This REO asset is under contract and a
      significant loss is expected upon its sale.

   -- The Village at Double Diamond loan ($15.2 million, 0.8%) was
      the second-largest specially serviced asset in the pool as
      of the Oct. reporting period, with a total reported exposure
      of $18.4 million.  The loan was transferred to Situs on
      Dec. 6, 2011, and became REO in Aug. 2012.  This REO asset
      was sold on Nov. 10, 2014, for $12.0 million.

The seven remaining assets with the special servicer have
individual balances that represent 0.5% or less of the total pool
trust balance.  S&P estimated losses for eight out of the nine
specially serviced assets, arriving at a 66.7% weighted average
loss severity.

For the specially serviced assets noted above, a minimal loss is
less than 25%, a moderate loss is 26%-59%, and a significant loss
is 60% or greater.

RATINGS LIST

Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2006-C1
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-C1

                               Rating           Rating
Class        Identifier        To               From
A-AB         225470F65         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-4          225470F73         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-1-A        225470F81         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-M          225470F99         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-J          225470G23         A- (sf)          A- (sf)
B            225470G31         BBB+ (sf)        BBB+ (sf)
C            225470G49         BBB (sf)         BBB (sf)
D            225470G56         BBB- (sf)        BBB- (sf)
E            225470G64         BB+ (sf)         BB+ (sf)
F            225470G72         BB- (sf)         BB (sf)
G            225470G80         B (sf)           BB- (sf)
H            225470H22         B- (sf)          B (sf)
J            225470H48         CCC (sf)         CCC (sf)
A-X          225470K69         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-Y          225470L27         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)


CREST 2003-2: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on 2 Note Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Crest 2003-2:

  Cl. C-1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on May 7, 2014
  Upgraded to A3 (sf)

  Cl. C-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on May 7, 2014
  Upgraded to A3 (sf)

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

  Cl. D-1, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on May 7, 2014 Upgraded
  to B3 (sf)

  Cl. D-2, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on May 7, 2014 Upgraded
  to B3 (sf)

  Cl. E-1, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on May 7, 2014 Affirmed
  Caa3 (sf)

  Cl. E-2, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on May 7, 2014 Affirmed
  Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the ratings of two classes of notes due to a
combination of rapid amortization of the senior classes, resulting
from the full amortization of high credit-risk collateral; and
upgrades of existing CMBS collateral. Moody's has affirmed the
ratings on the transaction because its key transaction metrics are
commensurate with existing ratings. The affirmation is the result
of Moody's on-going surveillance of commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO & Re-Remic) transactions.

Crest 2003-2 is a static cash transaction backed by a portfolio
of: i) commercial mortgage backed securities ("CMBS") (84.3% of
the collateral pool balance); ii) credit tenant leases ("CTL")
(9.2%); iii) and CRE CDOs (6.4%). As of the trustee's September
30, 2014 report, the aggregate note balance of the transaction,
including preferred shares, is $119.1 million, compared to $139.3
million at last review, with pay-downs directed at the senior most
outstanding classes of notes.

The pool contains fourteen assets totaling $36.1 million (46.5% of
the collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted
securities as of the trustee's September 30, 2014 report. Thirteen
of these assets (86.1% of the defaulted balance) are CMBS and one
is a CRE CDO (13.9%). While there have been limited realized
losses on the underlying collateral to date, Moody's does expect
significant losses to occur on the defaulted securities.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 4475,
compared to 3789 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: Aaa-Aa3 (18.9%, compared to 11.8% at last
review); A1-A3 (9.1%, compared to 9.4% at last review); Baa1-Baa3
(6.0%, compared to 14.3% at last review); Ba1-Ba3 (10.1%, compared
to 13.6% at last review); B1-B3 (10.6%, compared to 12.7% at last
review); and Caa1-Ca/C (45.4%, compared to 38.2% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.4 years, compared to 2.8 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying loans within the CMBS collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 6.7%, compared to 5.3% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 6.1%, compared to 11.8% 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 recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments. Reducing the recovery rates of 100% of the
collateral pool by 5.0% would result in an average modeled rating
movement on the rated notes of zero notches downward (e.g., one
notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1). Increasing
the recovery rate of 100% of the collateral pool by 5.0% would
result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of
zero notches upward (e.g., one notches upward implies a ratings
movement of 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.


CT CDO III: Fitch Lowers Class H Notes Rating to 'CCCsf'
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded one class, upgraded five classes and
affirmed six classes of CT CDO III Ltd./Corp.

Key Rating Drivers

Since Fitch's last rating action in November 2013, approximately
17.3% of the underlying collateral has been upgraded. Currently,
51.1% of the portfolio has a Fitch derived rating below investment
grade and 40.6% has a rating in the 'D' category. Over this
period, the class B note has received $8.3 million for a total of
$216.4 million in pay downs since issuance.

This transaction was analyzed under the framework described in the
report 'Global Rating Criteria for Structured Finance CDOs' using
the look-through analysis of 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. Additionally, a deterministic analysis was
performed where the recovery estimate on the distressed collateral
was modeled in accordance with the principal waterfall. An asset
by asset analysis was then performed for the remaining assets to
determine the collateral coverage for the remaining liabilities.
The class B through E notes has been upgraded given that their
balances are covered with equal or better rated underlying
collateral. The class H note has been downgraded due to the
increasing concentration risk of the underlying collateral.

Rating Sensitivities

The Stable Outlook on the classes B through F notes reflects the
credit quality of the underlying collateral and the view that the
transaction will continue to delever. The Negative Outlook on the
class G notes reflects the risk of adverse selection as the
portfolio continues to amortize.

Fitch has downgraded the following class:

-- $11,517,000 class H notes to 'CCCsf' from 'Bsf'.

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

-- $20,746,210 class B notes to 'AAsf' from 'BBB+sf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $13,650,000 class C notes to 'Asf' from 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $5,118,000 class D notes to 'BBBsf' from 'BBB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $6,825,000 class E notes to 'BBBsf' from 'BB+sf'; Outlook to
    Stable from Negative.

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

-- $6,825,000 class F notes at 'BB+sf'; Outlook to Stable from
    Negative;
-- $9,811,000 class G notes at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $6,825,000 class J notes at 'CCsf';
-- $3,839,000 class K notes at 'CCsf';
-- $5,118,000 class L notes at 'CCsf';
-- $5,545,000 class M notes at 'Csf';
-- $4,265,000 class N notes at 'Csf'.

Classes A-1 and A-2 have been paid in full. Fitch does not rate
classes O, Preferred Shares and X.


FLAGSHIP CLO VIII: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to
Flagship CLO VIII Ltd./Flagship CLO VIII LLC's $411.175 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 0.260%-13.839%.

   -- 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 excess interest proceeds that are available before
      paying uncapped administrative expenses and fees, collateral
      manager subordinated and incentive management fees, and
      subordinated note payments to principal proceeds to purchase
      additional collateral assets during the reinvestment period.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Flagship CLO VIII Ltd./Flagship CLO VIII LLC

Class              Rating    Interest                   Amount
                             rate                     (mil. $)
A                  AAA (sf)  Three-month LIBOR+1.56    275.000
B                  AA (sf)   Three-month LIBOR+2.49     54.500
C (deferrable)     A (sf)    Three-month LIBOR+3.13     30.125
D (deferrable)     BBB (sf)  Three-month LIBOR+3.70     22.750
E (deferrable)     BB- (sf)  Three-month LIBOR+5.20     20.800
F (deferrable)     B (sf)    Three-month LIBOR+5.85      8.000
Subordinate notes  NR        N/A                        39.860

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


FMC REAL ESTATE 2005-1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on F Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by FMC Real Estate CDO 2005-1 Ltd. ("FMC RE
2005-1"):

  Cl. D, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 21, 2014
  Affirmed Ba1 (sf)

  Cl. E, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on May 21, 2014 Affirmed
  Caa2 (sf)

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

  Cl. F, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on May 21, 2014 Affirmed
  Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the ratings of two classes of notes due to
the unexpected material pre-payment of a high credit risk asset in
the collateral pool. Moody's has affirmed the rating of one class
of notes because the key transaction metrics are commensurate with
the existing rating. The rating actions are the result of Moody's
on-going surveillance of commercial real estate collateralized
debt obligation (CRE CDO CLO) transactions.

FMC Real Estate CDO 2005-1, Ltd is a static cash transaction (the
reinvestment period ended in August, 2010) backed by a portfolio
of: i) a-notes and whole loans (64.3% of the pool balance); ii) b-
note debt (30.3%); and iii) mezzanine interests (5.3%). As of the
October 21, 2014 trustee report, the aggregate note balance of the
transaction has decreased to $107.4 million from $439.4 million 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 class of notes.

There was full cancellation of the Class G and Class H Notes in
August 2011. Per Moody's special comment, "Junior CDO Note
Cancellations Should Concern Senior Noteholders in Structured
Transactions," dated June 14, 2010, there is a concern that the
cancellation of junior notes can lead to a diversion of cash flow
away from the senior notes. During the current review, holding all
key parameters static, the full cancellations of the Class G and H
Notes in the subject transaction did not result in higher expected
losses and longer weighted average lives on the senior notes, or
have opposite effect on mezzanine and junior Notes in order to
cause, in and of itself, a downgrade or upgrade of the current
rating of the notes.

There are eight assets with a par balance of $71.6 million (62.3%
of the collateral pool balance) that are considered impaired
securities as of the October 21, 2014 trustee report. Two of these
assets are whole loans (33.8% of the impaired balance) and six
assets are b-notes (66.2%).

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 8712,
compared to 8237 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: B1-B3 and 9.7% compared to 7.8% at last
review, Caa1-Ca/C and 90.3% compared to 92.2% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.7 years, compared to 2.8 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying exposures.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 36.1%, compared to 39.9% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100% compared to 0% at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the
rated notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption
could be offset by a change in one or more of the other key
parameter assumptions. The rated notes are particularly sensitive
to changes in the recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments. Increasing the recovery rates by 10% would
result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of
zero to three notches (e.g., one notch up implies a ratings
movement of Ba1 to Baa3). Decreasing the recovery rates by 10%
would result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero to thirteen notches (e.g., one notch down implies a
ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1).

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


FORT IRWIN 2005A: S&P Lowers Rating on Class III Bonds to BB+
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Fort
Irwin Land LLC's series 2005A class III military housing revenue
bonds two notches to 'BB+ (sf)' from 'BBB (sf)'.  At the same
time, Standard & Poor's affirmed its 'AA (sf)' and 'AA- (sf)'
ratings on Fort Irwin Land LLC's series 2005A class I and class II
military housing revenue bonds, respectively.  All three bond
classes are issued for the Fort Irwin/Moffett/Parks Family Housing
project.  The outlook on all issues is stable.

"The lowering of the rating on the class III bonds is due to
continued debt service coverage deterioration on these bonds
within the past year, based on audited financials as of fiscal
year-end 2013," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Ki Beom K.
Park.

The ratings reflect the application of Standard & Poor's
affordable multifamily housing criteria released June 19, 2014.

"The stable outlook reflects our view of the project's sound
operating performance, strong coverage, high military
essentiality, and revenue stream strength that includes basic
allowance for housing," Mr. Park added.  "Should the project's
operating performance or occupancy decline, we could lower the
ratings.  The ratings are capped at their current levels, in
accordance with our criteria."

Comprising 642,000 acres, Fort Irwin is located in a desert
environment in southeastern California and is home to 4,709
military personnel and 4,910 rotational soldiers.


GE COMMERCIAL 2005-C1: DBRS Confirms B Rating for Cl. E Securities
------------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Inc. has confirmed the ratings of 10 classes of GE Commercial
Mortgage Corporation, Series 2005-C1, as follows:

-- Class A-5 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-1A at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-J at A (high) (sf)
-- Class B at A (high) (sf)
-- Class C at A (high) (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (sf)
-- Class E at B (sf)
-- Class F at C (sf)
-- Class G at C (sf)
-- Class X-C at AAA (sf)

All trends are Stable, with the exception of Classes F, G, which
have no trends.

DBRS previously discontinued Classes A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-AB and
X-P, following the repayment of their outstanding balances.

The rating confirmations reflect the overall stability of the
pool, as well as the increased credit enhancement to the
transaction overall.  While the credit enhancement to each class
has increased since issuance, the ratings are constrained at A
(high) (sf), given the potential for future interest shortfalls
and the lack of tolerance for interest shortfalls with respect to
DBRS ratings above A (high) (sf).

As of the November 2014 remittance report, there has been
collateral reduction of approximately 76.5% since issuance, with
94 loans having paid out of the pool at maturity or liquidated
from the Trust.  There are currently 33 loans remaining in the
transaction.  The transaction benefits from defeasance collateral
as four loans, representing 19.7% of the current pool balance, are
fully defeased.  The largest 15 loans in the transaction,
excluding defeasance, continue to exhibit stable performance, with
a weighted-average debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and
weighted-average debt yield of 1.26 times (x) and 9.4%,
respectively.  In the next 12 months, 31 loans, representing 78.3%
of the current pool balance, are scheduled to mature.  Excluding
defeasance, these loans have a weighted-average exit debt yield of
9.9%.

As part of its review, DBRS analyzed the top 15 loans, loans
maturing in the next 12 months, loans in special servicing and
loans on the servicer's watchlist, which comprise 100% of the
current pool balance.  There are currently two loans in special
servicing and 27 loans on the servicer's watchlist, which
represent 4.7% and 75.6% of the current pool balance,
respectively.  The loans on the servicer's watchlist have been
flagged, largely due to their respective upcoming maturities.
DBRS considered the current performance of these loans in its
analysis, which included assigning an elevated probability of
default associated with the latest reported cash flows to the
extent it was warranted.

The largest loan in special servicing, Skytop Pavilion (Prospectus
ID#48, representing 3.3% of the current pool balance), is secured
by a grocery-anchored retail property in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The
loan transferred to special servicing in May 2012, due to imminent
default.  According to the June 2014 rent roll, the property was
61.7% occupied with the largest tenant, Bigg's, representing 51.3%
of the Net Rentable Area (NRA), expiring in February 2020.
Several vacancies remain, however, including the 27,000 sf (20.2%
of the NRA) space formerly leased to Urban Active.  DBRS is not
aware of pending LOIs for any vacancies at the property.  The
property received an updated appraisal in June 2014, valuing the
property at $5.8 million, well below the issuance value of $19.6
million.  DBRS expects the Trust to experience a loss with the
resolution of this loan.

The largest loan on the servicer's watchlist, Lakeside Mall
(Prospectus ID#1, representing 19.4% of the current pool balance),
is secured by 650,000 sf of a 1.5 million sf regional mall in
Sterling Heights, Michigan.  The collateral consists of the in-
line space at the mall, as well as the Macy's Men's & Home anchor
pad. Other anchors at the mall include Macy's, JC Penney, Lord &
Taylor and Sears.  The loan is on the servicer's watchlist for a
low debt service coverage ratio, which was 1.08x at Q2 2013.
However, YE2013 DSCR has improved to 1.21x as a result of
increased reimbursements and is in line with YE2012 DSCR at 1.25x.
This loan originally matured in 2009 and was modified when its
sponsor, General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP), filed for
bankruptcy in the same year.  Terms of the modification included a
maturity extension until June 2016 and step increases in debt
service.  As of January 2013, annual debt service payments
increased by approximately $530,000 for three years, placing
further stress on cash flow.  According to the June 2014 rent
roll, the mall was 91.9% occupied, with in-line occupancy at
69.9%.  The mall reported sales of $308 psf for in-line tenants
and $104 psf for anchored tenants, according to the T-12 ending
June 2014 sales report.  As a result of the loan previously being
in special servicing and its subsequent modification, the special
servicer is entitled to a workout fee totaling 1.0% of the loan
balance at the time of loan repayment.  The payment of this
workout fee will reduce funds available to the Trust.  Given the
loan's extended maturity date and the transaction's waterfall (per
transaction documents), this may result in a principal loss that
would be contained to a class where DBRS is already expecting
losses.  However, if the loan were to prepay in advance of its
extended maturity date, the fee would cause interest shortfalls up
the capital stack, likely having an impact as high as the Class A-
J certificates, given the size of the loan.  Although it is likely
that any shorted interest to the Class A-J and Class B
certificates would be repaid within one remittance period, DBRS
has no tolerance for interest shortfalls above the A (high) (sf)
rating.


GMAC COMMERCIAL 2002-C3: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 3 Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on six classes
of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2002-C3 Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate as follows:

Cl. J, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Dec 20, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 20, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 20, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 20, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

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

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 20, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the classes J, K, L, M and N were affirmed because
the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss along with
concerns of interest shortfalls.

The rating on the IO class (Class X-1) was affirmed based on the
credit performance (or the weighted average rating factor) of its
referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 21.7% of
the current balance, compared to 28.4% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 4.3% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 4.6% at the last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

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

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 GMAC 2002-C3.

Moody's analysis also incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since two loans, representing
32% of the pool are in special servicing and Moody's identified
three loans, representing 60% of the pool as troubled loans. In
this approach, Moody's determines a probability of default for
each specially serviced and troubled loan that it expects will
generate a loss and estimates a loss given default based on a
review of broker's opinions of value (if available), other
information from the special servicer, available market data and
Moody's internal data. The loss given default for each loan also
takes into consideration repayment of servicer advances to date,
estimated future advances and closing costs. Translating the
probability of default and loss given default into an expected
loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss from
specially serviced loans to the most junior classes and the
recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior classes.

Description of Models Used

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

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 5, the same as at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the November 10, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 95% to $36.4
million from $777.4 million at securitization. The certificates
are collateralized by 9 mortgage loans ranging in size from 2% to
33% of the pool. One loan, constituting 4% of the pool, has
defeased and is secured by US government securities.

Two loans, constituting 48% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Eight loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $25 million. Two loans, constituting
32% of the pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest
specially serviced loan is the Lake Park Pointe Shopping Center
($7.4 million -- 19.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 80,000
square foot (SF) retail shopping center in Chicago, Illinois. The
loan transferred to special servicing in April 2012 due to the
largest tenant vacating in 2011. A loan modification in April 2013
included an interest reduction to 5% from 7.1% and an initial ten
month forbearance extension. There has been additional forbearance
periods executed and the Special Servicer indicated that the
Borrower is currently in negotiations to refinance the loan. As of
August 2014, the property was 88% leased and major tenants at the
property include Ross Dress for Less and Walgreens.

The other specially serviced loan is the Vista Office Center ($4.7
million -- 12.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 46,000 SF
office building in Temecula, California. The loan initially
transferred to special servicing in October 2012 due to imminent
maturity default and became REO in June 2013. As of September 2014
the property was 60% leased. The special servicer indicated they
are working to lease-up the property.

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for three poorly
performing loans, constituting 60% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $8.2 million from these troubled loans and
loans in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2012 and 2013 operating results for 80%
and 60% of the pool, respectively. Moody's weighted average
conduit LTV is 47%, compared to 75% at Moody's last review.
Moody's conduit component excludes defeased loans, troubled loans
and deliquent specially serviced loans. Moody's net cash flow
(NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 5% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 10.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 0.96X and 2.35X,
respectively, compared to 1.95X and 1.52X 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.

Due to clawbacks of advances from a loan modification, none of the
principal and interest certificates have received any principal or
interest payments since the March 2014 payment date. As of the
November 2014 remittance statement, the deal has cumulative
interest shortfalls of $2.9 million. Due to the specially serviced
and modified loans Moody's expects interest shortfalls to
continue. Interest shortfalls are caused by special servicing
fees, including workout and liquidation fees, appraisal
entitlement reductions (ASERs), loan modifications and
extraordinary trust expenses.

The largest performing loan is the Broadmoor Apartments ($12.75
million -- 33.4% of the pool), which is secured by 384 unit
multifamily property located in Tampa, Florida. The loan was
transferred to special servicing in July 2012 due to maturity
default and subsequently the borrower filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in April 2013. A court ordered modification was
executed with an effective date of November 2013. As part of the
modification the unpaid principal balance increased to $12.75 to
include advances and deferred expenses, the interest rate was
reduced to 5.0% (from 6.8%) and the loan maturity was extended 48
months. The loan returned to the master servicer in April 2014 but
remains on the watchlist due to low DSCR. The property was 80%
leased as of August 2014 but due to concessions and increased
operating expenses it continues to suffer from poor performance.
Moody's has identified this as a troubled loan.

The second largest performing loan is the Nashville Business
Center -- A note ($5.4 million -- 14.2% of the pool). The loan is
secured by a 893,100 SF industrial facility in Murfreesboro,
Tennessee. The loan transferred to special servicing in November
2011 due to imminent monetary default. Per the modification in
August 2013, the loan was split into a $5.6 million A-Note and
$3.6 million B-Note. Additional modification terms included a
maturity date extension to July 2014 with two, one-year extension
options and the loan was converted from amortizing to interest-
only for the remainder of the loan term. The Borrower has executed
the first extension period through July 2015. As of June 2014 the
property was 47% leased, however, prior to the extension the
borrower signed a new tenant representing 25% of the NRA.
Including this newly signed lease the property occupancy would
increase to 72%. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR on the A-note are
119% and 0.96X, respectively. Due to the poor performance history,
Moody's has identified this as a troubled loan.

The third largest performing loan is the Walgreens Savannah Loan
($1.0 million -- 2.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 15,100
SF Walgreens anchored retail property in Savannah, Georgia. This
property has been 100% leased to Walgreens since securitization
and has a lease expiration in November 2061. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 50% and 1.10X, respectively, compared to 56% and
1.93X at prior review.


GOLD KEY 2014-A: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class C Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Gold Key Resorts 2014-A LLC's $144.912 million
timeshare loan-backed notes series 2014-A.

The note issuance is an asset-backed securities transaction backed
by vacation ownership interval (timeshare) loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Nov. 14,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of the credit
enhancement available in the form of subordination (for the class
A and B notes only), overcollateralization, a reserve account that
increases to 5% of the aggregate loan balance if certain events
occur, and available excess spread.  S&P's preliminary ratings
also reflect its view of Ocean Beach Club's 24 years of experience
in the timeshare market and its demonstrated servicing ability.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Gold Key Resorts 2014-A LLC

  Class       Rating              Amount
                                 (mil. $)
  A           A (sf)             108.232
  B           BBB- (sf)           28.756
  C           BB (sf)              7.924


HARBOURVIEW CLO VII: Moody's Rates $22MM Cl. E Notes 'Ba3'
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to eight classes of
notes issued by HarbourView CLO VII, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$5,000,000 Class A-X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-X Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$228,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$30,000,000 Class A-F Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A-F Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$33,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class B-F Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-F Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$24,000,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Fixed Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

$24,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

$22,000,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

HarbourView VII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien
senior secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, cash and eligible investments and
up to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The portfolio is at least 60% ramped as of the
closing date.

HarbourView Asset Management Corporation (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 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: $403,500,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2625

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.80%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 45.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
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 2625 to 3019)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-X Notes: 0

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-F Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -1

Class B-F Notes: -1

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2625 to 3413)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-X Notes: 0

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-F Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-F 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.

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 Scores apply to the entire transaction,
rather than individual tranches.


HILDENE CLO III: Moody's Rates $5.5 Million Class F Notes '(P)B3'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to six
classes of Notes to be issued by Hildene CLO III Ltd.:

Moody's rating actions are as follows:

$220,500,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$43,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$18,750,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$20,250,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$18,750,000 Class E Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$5,500,000 Class F Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class F Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

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

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

Ratings Rationale

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

Hildene 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 90% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans
and senior unsecured loans. Moody's expect the portfolio to be
approximately 70% ramped as of the closing date.

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

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in February 2014.

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

Par amount: $350,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2900

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.9%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2900 to 3335)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F Notes: 0

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

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -3

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

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

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


HULL STREET: S&P Assigns B Rating on Class F Notes
--------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to Hull
Street CLO Ltd./Hull Street CLO LLC's $470.00 million floating-
rate notes.

The note issuance is 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
      (excluding excess spread), and cash flow structure, which
      can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which S&P expects 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.

   -- 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
      0.2316%-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 subordinated
      management fees, uncapped administrative expenses, incentive
      management fees, and subordinated note payments into
      principal proceeds to purchase additional collateral assets
      during the reinvestment period.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Hull Street CLO Ltd./Hull Street CLO LLC

Class                   Rating              Amount
                                           (mil. $)
A                       AAA (sf)            316.00
B                       AA (sf)              60.00
C (deferrable)          A (sf)               38.00
D (deferrable)          BBB (sf)             25.25
E (deferrable)          BB (sf)              20.75
F (deferrable)          B (sf)               10.00
Subordinated notes      NR                   45.00

NR--Not rated.


I-PREFERRED TERM IV: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. D Notes to B3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by I-Preferred Term Securities IV, Ltd.

$54,650,000 Floating Rate Class B-1 Mezzanine Notes Due June 24,
2034, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 19, 2014 Upgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

$25,500,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
June 24, 2034, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 19, 2014
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

$12,450,000 Floating Rate Class C Mezzanine Notes Due June 24,
2034, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on May 19, 2014 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

$6,200,000 Floating Rate Class D Subordinate Notes Due June 24,
2034, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on May 19, 2014 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

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

$37,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-2 Senior Notes Due June 24,
2034 (current balance of $31,372,870), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on May 19, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

$13,900,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class A-3 Senior Notes Due June
24, 2034 (current balance of $11,786,024), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on May 19, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

I-Preferred Term Securities IV, Ltd., issued in May 2004, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of insurance
and bank trust preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of the deleveraging of
the Class A-2 and A-3 notes which led to an increase in the
transaction's over-collateralization ratios since May 2014.

The Class A-2 and A-3 notes have paid down by approximately 15% or
$7.7 million since May 2014, using principal proceeds from the
redemption of the underlying assets and the diversion of excess
interest proceeds. Based on the trustee's September 2014 report,
the over-collateralization ratio of the Class A notes, Class B
notes and Class C notes are 366.1%, 128.1% and 116.4%,
respectively, compared to May 2014 levels of 318.2%, 134.1% and
123.0%. The Class A notes will continue to benefit from the
diversion of excess interest and the use of proceeds from
redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks and insurance companies that
Moody's does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of
bank TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses
RiskCalc(TM), an econometric model developed by Moody's Analytics,
to derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of
most of the bank obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q2-2014
financial data. For insurance TruPS that do not have public
ratings, Moody's relies on the assessment of its Insurance team,
based on the credit analysis of the underlying insurance firms'
annual statutory financial reports.

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

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 571)

Class A-2: 0

Class A-3: 0

Class B-1: +3

Class B-2: +3

Class C: +2

Class D: +2

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1409)

Class A-2: 0

Class A-3: 0

Class B-1: -1

Class B-2: -1

Class C: -3

Class D: -2


JP MORGAN 2002-C3: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 2 Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings of four classes
in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-C3 as
follows:

  Cl. F, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
  Caa2 (sf)

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

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

  Cl. X-1, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014
  Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

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

The rating on the IO class, Class X-1, was 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 46.9% of
the current balance, compared to 50.2% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 10.3% of
the original pooled balance compared to 10.4% 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 methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in September
2000, and "Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single
Borrower Transactions" published in July 2000.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 55% of the pool is in
special servicing and performing conduit loans only represent 30%
of the pool. In this approach, Moody's determines a probability of
default for each specially serviced loan that it expects will
generate a loss and estimates a loss given default based on a
review of information from the special servicer, available market
data and Moody's internal data. The loss given default for each
loan also takes into consideration repayment of servicer advances
to date, estimated future advances and closing costs. Translating
the probability of default and loss given default into an expected
loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss from
specially serviced loans to the most junior classes and the
recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior classes.

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 2002-C3.

Description of Models Used

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

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 2 compared to 4 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the November 12, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 96% to $31 million
from $745 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by seven mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 3% to 55% of the pool. One loan, constituting 15% of the
pool, has defeased and is secured by US government securities.

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

Eleven loans have been liquidated at a loss from the pool,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $62 million (for an
average loss severity of 64%). One loan, constituting 55% of the
pool, is currently in special servicing. The specially serviced
loan is the 78 Corporate Center Loan ($17 million), which is
secured by a 186,000 square foot (SF), two-building office complex
located in Lebanon, New Jersey. The loan transferred to special
servicing in January 2009 due to delinquency. The servicer assumed
title in a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure transaction in August 2009
and the property is now real estate owned (REO). The property has
remained in the range of 19-25% leased for more than two years,
despite efforts to lease it up.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results and partial year
2014 operating results for all of the pool's loans except for the
defeased loan. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 49%,
compared to 50% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component
excludes the specially serviced and defeased loan. Moody's net
cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 14% to the
most recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.32X and 2.30X,
respectively, compared to 1.36X and 2.20X 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. Moody's
stressed DSCR is greater than Moody's actual DSCR for this
transaction because all five conduit loans are fully amortizing
and the current loan constant is in excess of Moody's 9.25%
stressed rate.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 22% of the pool.
The largest loan is the Conroe Shopping Center Loan ($2.8 million
-- 8.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 51,000 SF retail
center located approximately 41 miles north of downtown Houston,
in Conroe, Texas. The property was 100% leased as of September
2014, the same at the last review. Moody's current LTV and
stressed DSCR are 44% and 2.34X, respectively, compared to 48% and
2.16X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Shoal Creek Apartments, Phase II
Loan ($2.5 million -- 8.0% of the pool). The loan is secured by an
87-unit multifamily complex located in Athens, Georgia, near the
University of Georgia campus. The property was 98% leased as of
September 2014 compared to 100% at last review. The property is
currently on the watchlist for low DSCR. The loan is fully
amortizing and has paid down 43% since securitization. The debt
yield is 17.9% based on the reported 2013 net operating income.
Moody's current LTV and stressed DSCR are 56% and 1.74X,
respectively, compared to 60% and 1.63X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Eckerd -- Cary Loan ($1.7 million
-- 5.5% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 11,000 SF retail
store located in Cary, North Carolina. The property is 100% leased
to Rite-Aid, through its acquisition of Eckerd. The lease runs
until July 2025. The loan is fully amortizing. Moody's current LTV
and stressed DSCR are 69% and 1.65X, respectively, compared to 59%
and 1.91X Moody's last review.


JP MORGAN 2004-CIBC9: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to B
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the
classes C, D, and E commercial mortgage pass-through certificates
from JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.'s series
2004-CIBC9, 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 the
current and future performance of the remaining loans in the pool,
the transaction's structure, the liquidity available to the trust,
and the significantly reduced trust balance.

S&P raised its ratings on classes C, D, and E to reflect its
expectation of theavailable credit enhancement for the classes,
which S&P believes is greater than its most recent estimates of
necessary credit enhancement for the respective rating levels.

While available credit enhancement levels suggest further positive
rating movements on classes D and E, S&P's analysis also
considered the classes' susceptibility to reduced liquidity
support from the four loans on the master servicer's watchlist.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Nov. 12, 2014, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $46.9 million, which is 4.3% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 11 loans, down from 98
loans at issuance.  One of these loans (the 326 Warren Street
Loan; $11.1 million, 23.6% of the total pool) is with the special
servicer, one ($2.5 million, 5.3%) is defeased, and four ($12.0
million, 25.5%) are on the master servicer's watchlist.  The
master servicer, Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, reported year-
end 2012 or 2013 financial information for all of the nondefeased
loans in the pool.

S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average debt service
coverage (DSC)of 1.41x and loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 66.3%
using a Standard & Poor's weighted average capitalization rate of
7.99%.  The DSC, LTV, and capitalization rate calculations exclude
the specially serviced and defeased loans.

The properties securing the underlying loans are concentrated
within the New York-Newark-Jersey City and Philadelphia-Camden-
Wilmington metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).  Standard &
Poor's U.S. Public Finance Group provides credit ratings on New
York City and New Castle County, which participate within those
MSAs.

To date, the transaction has experienced $71.6 million in
principal losses, or 6.5% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 6.7% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses S&P expects upon the sole specially serviced
loan's eventual resolution.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Nov. 12, 2014, trustee remittance report, the 326 Warren
Street loanis the largest loan in the transaction and the sole
loan with the special servicer, C-III Asset Management LLC.  The
loan, secured by a 48-unit multifamily property in Brooklyn, N.Y.,
has $11.5 million in total reported exposure and was transferred
to the special servicer in April 2013 because the borrower filed
for bankruptcy.  The special servicer is pursuing all rights and
remedies and expects a final resolution on the loan by year-end
2014.  As of the July 2014 rent roll, the property was 100%
occupied.  S&P expects a minimal loss (less than 25%) upon the
loan's eventual resolution.

RATINGS LIST

JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2004-CIBC9

                                 Rating            Rating
Class         Identifier         To                From
C             46625M6Y0          AAA (sf)          BB+ (sf)
D             46625M6Z7          BBB+ (sf)         CCC+ (sf)
E             46625M7A1          B (sf)            CCC (sf)


JP MORGAN 2003-C1: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Certs to Caa3
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on five classes
and downgraded the ratings on two classes in J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2003-C1 as follows:

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

  Cl. E, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed
  Baa1 (sf)

  Cl. F, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed B1
  (sf)

  Cl. G, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014
  Affirmed Caa2 (sf)

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

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

  Cl. X-1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014
  Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on P&I classes D, E and F 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 H and J were affirmed because
the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on P&I class G was downgraded due to an increase in
anticipated losses from specially serviced loans.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 40.9% of
the current balance compared to 30.0% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 8.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 8.3% at the last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

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

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 2003-C1.

Description Of Models Used

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

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 5 compared to 6 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Moody's analysis also incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 64% of the pool is in
special servicing and performing conduit loans only represent 31%
of the pool. In this approach, Moody's determines a probability of
default for each specially serviced loan that it expects will
generate a loss and estimates a loss given default based on a
review of information from the special servicer, available market
data and Moody's internal data. The loss given default for each
loan also takes into consideration repayment of servicer advances
to date, estimated future advances and closing costs. Translating
the probability of default and loss given default into an expected
loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss from
specially serviced loans to the most junior classes and the
recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior classes.

Deal Performance

As of the November 12, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 93% to $72 million
from $1.07 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 11 mortgage loans ranging in size from 1% to 31%
of the pool. Two loans, constituting 5% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

One loan, constituting 19% of the pool, is on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Eleven loans have been liquidated at a loss from the pool,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $62 million (for an
average loss severity of 70%). Five loans, constituting 64% of the
pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest specially
serviced loan is the Prince Georges Metro Center IV Loan ($22
million -- 30.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 178,000
square foot (SF) office property in Hyattsville, Maryland. The
loan failed to repay at its March 2013 maturity and became REO in
July 2014. The property was built-to-suit for the US Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2002. HHS fully leased the
property under a 10 year lease. HHS renewed the lease until
December 2014. HHS recently signed a new 15-year lease at the
property, but the new lease is only for 104,000 SF. The special
servicer is currently marketing the property for sale.

The remaining four specially serviced loans are secured by a
office and retail properties. Moody's estimates an aggregate $28
million loss for the specially serviced loans (61% expected loss
on average).

Moody's received full year 2013 and partial year 2014 operating
results for 100% of the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV
is 66% compared to 70% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit
component excludes loans with structured credit assessments,
defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced and troubled loans.
Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of
13% to the most recently available net operating income (NOI).
Moody's value reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of
9.3%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.06X and 1.53X,
respectively, compared to 1.12X and 1.57X 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. Moody's
stressed DSCR is greater than Moody's actual DSCR for this
transaction because the transaction's average debt constant is
greater than Moody's stressed 9.25% rate.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 28% of the pool
balance. All top three conduit loans are fully amortizing loans
with a January 2023 loan maturity. Each of the top three loans has
amortized between 42% and 44% since securitization. The largest
loan is the Mark IV Las Vegas Loan ($14 million -- 19.4% of the
pool), which is secured by three adjoining industrial properties
totaling 451,000 SF. The collateral is located in Las Vegas,
Nevada. The loan has been on the watchlist for low DSCR since
January 2013. The borrower reports a recent increase in leasing
activity. The collateral is 84% leased as of September 2014.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 71% and 1.44X, respectively,
compared to 80% and 1.29X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Ocoee Crossing Shopping Center ($3
million -- 4.5% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 63,000 SF
grocery-anchored retail center located in Cleveland, Tennessee.
The property is 97% leased as of January 2014 with average in-
place rents of $11 per square foot. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 56% and, 1.85X, respectively, compared to 61% and 1.68X at the
last review

The third largest loan is the Walgreens-Lyndon Lane Loan ($3
million -- 4.0% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 15,000 SF
retail property. Walgreens leases the entire property via a long
term triple net lease expiring in October 2061. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 59% and 1.73X, respectively, compared to 64% and
1.60X at last review.


JP MORGAN 2012-LC9: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class G Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings of 16 classes of
J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, Series
2012-LC9 as follows:

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

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3, 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-5, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

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

Cl. A-SB, 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. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. EC, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed A1
(sf)

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

Cl. X-B, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2013 Affirmed A1
(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.

The transaction contains a group of exchangeable certificates.
Classes A-S (Aaa), B (Aa2) and C (A2) may be exchanged for Class
EC (A1) certificates and Class EC may be exchanged for the Classes
A-S, B and C. The EC certificates will be entitled to receive the
sum of interest distributable on the Classes A-S, B and C
certificates that are exchanged for such EC certificates. The
initial certificate balance of the Class EC certificates is equal
to the aggregate of the initial certificate balances of the Class
A-S, B and C and represent the maximum certificate balance of the
EC certificates that may be issued in an exchange.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 4.9% of the
current balance, compared to 2.4% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 2.4% 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 JPMCC 2012-LC9.

Description of Models Used

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

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 45, the same as at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the October 20, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 1% to $1.06 billion
from $1.07 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 45 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 12% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 58% of
the pool.

No loans are currently on the watchlist. No loans have been
liquidated from the pool. There are no troubled or specially
serviced loans.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 95% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 98%, compared to
100% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 9.3% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.72X and 1.07X,
respectively, compared to 1.66X and 1.03X 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 26% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the West County Center Loan ($130.0 million
-- 12.3% of the pool), which is secured by 744,000 SF retail
component in a 1.2 million square foot (SF) super-regional mall
located in Des Peres, Missouri. The 36-month interest-only loan
represents a 68% pari-passu interest in a $190.0 million A-note.
The anchor tenants include Macy's, JC Penny and Nordstrom, of
which only Nordstrom is part of the collateral. As of June 2013,
the property was 99% leased, the same as at prior review. The
sponsor is CBL & Associates. Moody's current LTV and stressed DSCR
are 84% and 1.12X, respectively, compared to 82% and 1.15X.

The second largest loan is the Waterfront Loan ($81.4 million --
7.7% of the pool) which is secured by a 765,000 SF retail
component within a large master development project situated along
the Monongahela River in Homestead, PA. The loan is interest-only
for the first 60 months. The property is located approximately
five miles east of the Pittsburgh central business district. The
master development consists of over 265 acres with a mix of
retail, office, residential and hotel properties. Shadow anchors
to the collateral include Lowe's Home Improvement Center, Target,
Giant Eagle, Macy's and Costco. The collateral consists of five
retail properties: i). the Watertown Center; ii). Market on the
Waterfront; iii). Waterfront Market Amity; iv). Amity Square at
the Waterfront and v). Market on the Waterfront II. In aggregate,
the five retail properties comprise of 14 buildings. As of June
2014, the total property was 95% leased, the same as at prior
review. The sponsor is J&J Wilkow. Moody's current LTV and
stressed DSCR are 109% and 0.92X, respectively, compared to 99%
and 1.02X.

The third largest loan is the 360 North Crescent Loan ($65.0
million -- 6.1% of the pool), which is secured by two low-rise
Class A office buildings located in the Golden Triangle in Beverly
Hills. The loan is interest-only for the first 60 months of its
term and is encumbered with an $8 million B-note held outside the
trust. Totaling 123,000 SF, the properties are 100% leased to
Platinum Equities September 2027. Twenty-nine percent of the net
rentable area (NRA) is sub-leased to Paradigm Talent Agency. The
sponsor is Tom Gores, the founder of Platinum Equities. Due to the
single tenant exposure, Moody's value is based on a lit/dark
analysis. Moody's current LTV and stressed DSCR are 105% and 0.95X
respectively, the same as at prior review.


JP MORGAN 2014-FL6: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on 4 Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust
2014-FL6's $503.987 million commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2014-FL6.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by 13 commercial mortgage loans with
a $503.987 million aggregate principal balance (of which $409.960
million will be pooled), secured by the fee or leasehold
interests, or both, in 40 properties across 11 U.S. states and the
District of Columbia.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Nov. 13,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's
historic and projected performance, the sponsor's and manager's
experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loans' terms, and
the transaction's structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-FL6

Class         Rating(i)        Amount ($)
A             AAA (sf)        282,800,000
X-CP          BBB- (sf)       409,960,000(ii)
X-EXT         BBB- (sf)       409,960,000(ii)
B             AA- (sf)         40,600,000
C             A (sf)           31,500,000
D             BBB- (sf)        55,060,000
DFW1(iii)     BB- (sf)         12,800,000
DFW2(iii)     B (sf)            6,900,000
MTP1(iii)     BB- (sf)          8,200,000
MTP2(iii)     B- (sf)          13,800,000
PHW1(iii)     BB- (sf)          9,400,000
PHW2(iii)     B (sf)            6,100,000
BAT1(iii)     BB (sf)           6,400,000
BAT2(iii)     BB- (sf)          1,037,500
VINE(iii)     BB+ (sf)          3,110,000
TLAN(iii)     BB (sf)           2,130,000
WCP1(iii)     BB- (sf)          3,300,000
WCP2(iii)     B- (sf)           3,900,000
HSRV(iii)     BB- (sf)          4,700,000
FMS1(iii)     BB- (sf)          4,100,000
FMS2(iii)     B- (sf)           3,750,000
BWT1(iii)     BB- sf)           2,200,000
BWT2(iii)     B- (sf)           2,200,000

  (i) The certificates will be issued to qualified institutional
      buyers according to Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933.
(ii) Notional balance.
(iii) Loan-specific class.


KILIMANJARO RE 2014-2: S&P Assigns BB- Rating to Class C Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said that it has assigned its
'BB-(sf)' rating to Kilimanjaro Re Ltd.'s Series 2014-2 Class C
notes.  The notes cover losses on a per-occurrence basis from
earthquakes (including fire following) in all 50 U.S. states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all provinces and
territories of Canada.  This brings the total of natural-peril
catastrophe bonds issued by Kilimanjaro Re Ltd. in 2014 to $950
million.

The rating is based on the lowest of the natural-catastrophe (nat-
cat) risk factor ('bb-') for the notes, the rating on the assets
in the reinsurance account ('AAAm'), and the rating on the ceding
insurer ('A+').

The modeling used AIR's most up-to-date industry exposure database
as of Dec. 31, 2013.  The baseline probability of attachment,
expected loss, and probability of exhaustion are 2.26%, 1.46%, and
0.93%, respectively.

S&P stressed the exceedance probability (EP) curve in line with
the strengths and concerns of the transaction.  The stress S&P
applied to the EP curve was slightly higher (primarily due to
exposure to the Cascadian subduction zone, potential losses
related to a tsunami, and lack of a maximum time frame during
which an earthquake event could occur) than indicated by S&P's
criteria for an industry loss transaction.  But this did not
result in a change to the rating once S&P applied these stresses,
because there is a significant spread between the probability of
attachment and the 'b+' nat-cat risk factor.

RATINGS LIST

New Rating
Kilimanjaro Re Ltd.
  Sr notes series 2014-2 class C               BB-(sf)


KODIAK CDO I: S&P Affirms CC Rating on 9 Note Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on the
class A-1 notes from Kodiak CDO I Ltd., a U.S. cash flow
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transaction backed in part by
trust-preferred and mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT)
securities, and removed it from CreditWatch with negative
implications.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its 'CC (sf)'
ratings on nine other classes of notes from the same transaction.

The affirmation on the class A-1 notes reflects a large paydown to
the notes since S&P's last rating action in June 2012.  The
transaction is currently benefitting from excess spread that is
being captured because of interest coverage and
overcollateralization ratio failures.  The affirmed 'CC (sf)'
ratings on nine other classes of notes reflect S&P's belief that
the credit support available is commensurate with the current
rating levels.

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

The transaction is currently accelerating payment to the class A-1
notes following the event of default that occurred on Feb. 12,
2014, as a result of a missed interest payment on the class B
notes.  A notice of acceleration was provided on March 7, 2014,
following a directive from a majority of the controlling class.
In line with the transaction documents, payment has been stopped
to all classes subordinate to the class A-1 notes, causing a prior
default in interest on the class A-2 notes.

The transaction continues to fail its class A/B interest coverage
and overcollateralization ratio tests and, as a result, diverts
all available interest proceeds to pay down the class A-1 notes,
in line with the transaction documents.  The availability of
interest proceeds to pay down the class A-1 notes has the
potential of increasing in 2016 following the termination of a
number of underlying interest rate hedges in the transaction, as a
portion of available interest proceeds are currently being used to
pay the hedge payments associated with the swaps.

After the Nov. 2014 payment period, the remaining class A-1 note
balance is $121.51 million, equal to 35.90% of its original
balance, down from $224.36 million in May 2012, which S&P used for
its last rating action in June 2012.

In addition, the aggregate balances of defaulted and deferred
obligations decreased by $63.14 million since S&P's last 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.  In
line with S&P's criteria, its cash flow scenarios applied forward-
looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of
defaults, and recoveries upon default, under various interest rate
and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's analysis
considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest 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

              Notional bal. (mil. $)
Class       May-12(i)       Nov-14(ii)

A-1            224.36           121.51
A-2            103.50           104.06
B               83.00            83.65
C               31.16            31.93
D-1             16.06            19.20
D-2              5.72             5.97
D-3             30.79            32.12
E-1              6.17             6.50
E-2             32.71            34.41
F                8.28             8.88
G               62.75            69.76
H               37.20            43.11

Coverage tests (%)
            May-12(i)           Nov-14
A/B I/C        506.83            97.00
C I/C          456.23            91.34
D I/C          331.79            74.48
E I/C          293.95            68.81
G I/C          210.24            54.47
H I/C          173.36            47.60
A/B O/C        125.24           124.40
C O/C          116.41           113.09
D O/C          104.04            97.29
E O/C           96.45            88.44
G O/C           85.12            75.33
H O/C           80.18            69.69

  (i) Trustee report used for S&P's June 2012 rating actions.
(ii) Notional balances adjusted to reflect the November 2014
      distribution date.
O/C -- Overcollateralization test.
I/C -- interest coverage test.

RATING AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

Kodiak CDO I Ltd.

                 Rating
Class        To          From
A-1          BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)/Watch Neg
C            CC (sf)     CC (sf)
D-1          CC (sf)     CC (sf)
D-2          CC (sf)     CC (sf)
D-3          CC (sf)     CC (sf)
E-1          CC (sf)     CC (sf)
E-2          CC (sf)     CC (sf)
F            CC (sf)     CC (sf)
G            CC (sf)     CC (sf)
H            CC (sf)     CC (sf)

OTHER RATINGS OUTSTANDING

Kodiak CDO I Ltd.

Class        Rating
A-2          D (sf)
B            D (sf)


LB-UBS 2002-C4: Fitch Withdraws 'Dsf' Ratings on 4 Debt Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has withdrawn the four remaining distressed classes
of LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust series 2002-C4, all of which
are rated 'D', as the classes have experienced realized losses.

Key Rating Drivers

Since the last full review, the transaction has effectively been
liquidated, with all remaining classes either paying in full or
being reduced to $0 from losses.

Fitch withdraws the ratings on the following classes:

--$0 Class N Withdrawn from 'Dsf'
--$0 Class Q Withdrawn from 'Dsf'
--$0 Class S Withdrawn from 'Dsf'
--$0 Class T Withdrawn from 'Dsf'


LB-UBS 2003-C1: Fitch Raises Class Q Certificates Rating to 'Bsf'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded five classes and affirmed one class of
LB-UBS commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2003-
C1.

Key Rating Drivers

Fitch modeled losses of 5% of the remaining pool; expected losses
on the original pool balance total 1.4%, including $17.3 million
(1.3% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.
Fitch has not designated any loans as Fitch Loans of Concern, and
no loans are in special servicing. No loans are defeased. Interest
shortfalls are currently affecting classes Q through T.

As of the November 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 97.7% to $30.9 million from
$1.37 billion at issuance. The transaction remains concentrated
with only five loans remaining, all of which are secured by retail
properties. The largest loan (43%) is secured by a 139,256 square
foot (sf) property in Dallas, TX. The largest tenants are
Albertson's (42%), Mi Cocina (5%), and Bank of America (3%), with
lease expirations in 3/2019, 8/2017, and 2/2017; respectively.
There is approximately 5% of upcoming tenant rollover in 2015. The
loan matures in December 2017.

The next largest loan (40%) is secured by a 136,528 sf property
located in Fort Worth, TX. The largest tenants are Babies R US
(27%), Staples (18%), and Petco (10%) with lease expirations in
1/2016; 7/2016, and 1/2017; respectively. There is approximately
53% of expected tenant rollover in 2016. The loan matures in
December 2017.

The remaining three properties are all secured by single-tenant
Rite Aid Stores located in CA, NH, and NJ. Rite Aid is currently
rated 'B'; Outlook Stable by Fitch.

Rating Sensitivities

Rating Outlooks on classes L through Q remain Stable due to
increasing credit enhancement and continued paydown. Although
current credit enhancement is high, the rating on Class L is
capped at 'A' due to increasing pool concentration, adverse
selection, and overall collateral quality.

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

$124,679 class L to 'Asf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;

$6.9 million class M to 'BBBsf' from 'Bsf'; Outlook to Stable
from Negative;

$6.9 million class N to 'BBsf' from 'CCCsf'; Outlook Stable;

$10.3 million class P to 'Bsf' from 'CCsf'; Outlook Stable;

$5.1 million class Q to 'Bsf' from 'CCsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

$1.7 million class S at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-1b, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, and
X-CP certificates have paid in full. Fitch does not rate the class
T certificates. Fitch previously withdrew the rating on the
interest-only class X-CL certificates.


LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2004-C7: S&P Raises Rating on Class K Notes to B
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on six
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from LB-
UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2004-C7, 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 the
current and future 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 E, F, G, H, J, and K to reflect
its expectation of the available credit enhancement for these
classes, which S&P believes is greater than its most recent
estimate of necessary credit enhancement for the respective rating
levels.  S&P also considered the trust balance's significant
reduction and the monthly amortization from the largest loan,
comprising 73.6% of the pool balance, that is defeased.

While available credit enhancement level suggests further positive
rating movement on classes G, H, J, and K, S&P's analysis also
considered the susceptibility to reduced liquidity support from
the four specially serviced loans ($11.1 million, 13.4%) and the
two loans on the master servicer's watchlist ($7.9 million, 9.5%).

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Oct. 20, 2014, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $83.2 million, which is 5.9% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes eight loans, down from
82 loans at issuance.  Four of these loans are with the special
servicer, one ($61.2 million, 73.6%) is defeased and two are on
the master servicer's watchlist.  The master servicer, Wells Fargo
Bank N.A., reported year-end 2013 financial information for 100%
of the non-defeased loans in the pool.

S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average debt service
coverage (DSC) of 1.30x and loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 74.4%
using a Standard & Poor's weighted average capitalization rate of
7.50%.  The DSC, LTV, and capitalization rate calculations exclude
the four specially serviced loans and the defeased loan.

The properties securing the underlying loans are concentrated
within the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, Omaha-Council Bluffs,
and Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs).  Standard & Poor's U.S. Public Finance group provides
credit ratings on Prince George's County, Douglas County, and
Catawba County, which participate within those MSAs.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Oct. 20, 2014, trustee remittance report, four loans in
the pool are with the special servicer, CWCapital Asset Management
LLC. Details of the two largest specially serviced loans are as
follows:

The Spring Ridge Plaza loan ($3.7 million, 4.5%) is the second-
largest nondefeased loan in the pool and has $3.9 million total
reported exposure.  The loan is secured by a 40,421 sq. ft. retail
property in Omaha, Neb. and was transferred to CWCapital on
July 16, 2014, because of imminent monetary default.  This loan
matured on Oct. 11, 2014.  The reported occupancy and DSC for the
three months ended March 31, 2014, were 52.6% and 0.76x,
respectively.  S&P expects a minimal loss upon this loan's
eventual resolution.

The Startown Crossing loan ($3.2 million, 3.9%) has $3.3 million
total reported exposure.  The loan is secured by a 43,782 sq. ft.
retail property in Newton, N.C. and was transferred to CWCapital
on June 16, 2014, because of it maturity default after maturing on
June 11, 2014.  The reported occupancy and DSC for the three
months ended March 31, 2014, were 90.4% and 1.16x, respectively.
A revised appraisal reduction amount of $381,659, according to
CWCapital, is in effect against this loan and we expect a minimal
loss upon its eventual resolution.

The two remaining loans with the special servicer have individual
balances that represent less than 3.0% of the total pool trust
balance.  S&P estimated losses for the four specially serviced
loans, deriving a 10.6% weighted average loss severity.

With respect to the specially serviced loans noted above, a
minimal loss is less than 25%, a moderate loss is 26%-59%, and a
significant loss is 60% or greater.

RATINGS RAISED

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2004-C7
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

            Rating      Rating     Credit enhancement
  Class     To          From                (%)
  E         AAA (sf)    A+ (sf)          93.46
  F         AA+ (sf)    A (sf)           76.45
  G         AA (sf)     A- (sf)          61.56
  H         AA- (sf)    BBB+ (sf)        46.67
  J         A+ (sf)     BB (sf)          36.04
  K         B (sf)      CCC- (sf)        14.77


LIMEROCK CLO III: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes 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"), Definitive Rating Assigned
  Aaa (sf)

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

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

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

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

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

  $12,500,000 Class E Deferrable Junior Secured Floating Rate
  Notes due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating
  Assigned 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."

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.

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. The
portfolio is approximately 90% 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: 0

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.


LNR CDO 2002-1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 3 Note Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by LNR CDO 2002-1 Collateralized Debt Obligations,
Series 2002-1:

  Cl. C, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2013 Upgraded
  to Baa1 (sf)

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

  Cl. D-FL, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2013
  Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

  Cl. D-FX, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2013
  Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

  Cl. E-FL, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2013 Affirmed
  C (sf)

  Cl. E-FX, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2013 Affirmed
  C (sf)

  Cl. E-FXD, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2013 Affirmed
  C (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the rating on the transaction due to upgrades
on the underlying assets and improvements in the investment-grade
/ below investment-grade ratings distribution of the collateral.
Moody's has affirmed the ratings on the transaction because its
key transaction metrics are commensurate with existing ratings.The
rating action is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO &
Re-REMIC) transactions.

LNR CDO 2002-1, Ltd. is a cash transaction solely backed by a
portfolio of commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) issued
between 1998 and 2002. As of the trustee's October 22, 2014
report, the aggregate note balance of the transaction, including
preferred shares, is $599.7 million from $634.4 million at last
review.

The pool contains twenty six assets totaling $121 million (75.1%
of the collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted or
impaired securities as of the trustee's October 22, 2014 report;
primarily due to a combination of rating changes and/or interest
shortfalls. While there have been limited realized losses on the
underlying collateral to date, Moody's does expect
moderate/significant losses to occur on the defaulted securities.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 6,769,
compared to 6,821 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: Aaa-Aa3 (10.9% compared to 0% at last
review), A1-A3 (2.9% compared to 8.5% at last review), Baa1-Baa3
(9.2% compared to 5.4% at last review), Ba1-Ba3 (1.0% compared to
9.3% at last review); B1-B3 (2.0% compared to 6.5% at last
review); and Caa1-Ca/C (74.1%, compared to 70.3% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.0 years, the same as that at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 5.7%, as compared to 6.4% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 0%, same as 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 notches (e.g., one notch up implies a ratings movement of Ba1
to Baa3). Decreasing the recovery rates by 10% would result in an
average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of zero notches
(e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1).

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


MAC CAPITAL: Moody's Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to Ba1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by MAC Capital, Ltd.:

  $35,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due July 2023,
  Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Upgraded to A1
  (sf);

  $16,600,000 Class B-1F Fixed Rate Notes Due July 2023, Upgraded
  to A2 (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Upgraded to Baa3 (sf);

  $4,400,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due July 2023,
  Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Upgraded to
  Baa3 (sf);

  $5,000,000 Class B-2F Fixed Rate Notes Due July 2023, Upgraded
  to Ba1 (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Affirmed Ba3 (sf);

  $14,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due July 2023,
  Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Affirmed Ba3
  (sf);

  $27,700,000 Class C-1 MAC Combination Securities due July 2023
  (current outstanding rated balance of $10,249,357), Upgraded to
  Aa1 (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Upgraded to A2 (sf);

  $12,500,000 Class C-3 MAC Combination Securities due July 2023
  (current outstanding rated balance of 2,881,703), Upgraded to
  A1 (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Upgraded to A3 (sf).

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

  $203,000,000 Class A-1L Floating Rate Notes Due July 2023
  (current outstanding balance of $11,717,138), Affirmed Aaa
  (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf);

  Up to $75,000,000 (or the USD Equivalent thereof in Euro,
  Sterling and/or Australian Dollars) Class A-1LV Floating Rate
  Revolving Notes Due July 2023 (current outstanding balance of
  EUR 1,911,747, and GBP 1,113,971), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
  previously on July 9, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf);

  $49,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due July 2023,
  Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 9, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa
  (sf).

MAC Capital, Ltd., issued in May 2007, is a collateralized loan
obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of U.S. dollar-
denominated senior secured loans with significant exposure to
mezzanine debt and some exposure to EUR and GBP denominated
assets. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in July 2013.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since July 2014. The Class A-1 notes have
been paid down by approximately 77% or $53.5 million (based on the
applicable exchange rates) since that time. Based on Moody's
calculation, which reflects the most recent payment in October
2014, the Senior Class A, Class A, Class B-1 and Class B-2
overcollateralization ratios are currently 268.5%, 174.4%, 144.1%
and 124.5%, respectively, versus July 2014 levels of 193.6%,
149.4%, 131.4% and 118.5%, respectively. Additionally, the rated
balances of the Class C-1 and Class C-3 combination securities
have been reduced by approximately 12% and 21%, respectively, or
$1.4 million and $0.8 million, respectively, since July 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.

7) Currency exposure: The deal has a small exposure to non-USD
denominated assets. Volatilities in foreign exchange rate will
have a direct impact on interest and principal proceeds available
to the transaction, which may affect the expected loss of rated
tranches. Furthermore, a higher amortization speed, in either the
USD or Non-USD denominated assets, exposes the transaction to
foreign currency risk because the principal proceeds have to be
converted at the spot exchange rate to pay down the pro-rata
liabilities.

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% (2536)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LV: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1F: +2

Class B-1L: +2

Class B-2F: +1

Class B-2L: +1

Combo Notes C-1: +1

Combo Notes C-3: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3804)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LV: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: -1

Class B-1F: -2

Class B-1L: -2

Class B-2F: -1

Class B-2L: -1

Combo Notes C-1: -2

Combo Notes C-3: -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 underlying collateral pool to have a
performing par of $167 million in USD denominated assets, EUR2.3
million in EUR denominated assets and GBP1.4 million in GBP
denominated assets, defaulted par of $11.5 million in USD
denominated assets, a weighted average default probability of
21.50% (implying a WARF of 3170), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 40.75%, a diversity score of 36 and a weighted
average spread of 3.38% (before adjustments for LIBOR floors).

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.

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 3.6% 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
3.8% of the pool.


MADISON PARK VI: Moody's Raises Rating on Class E Notes to Ba1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Madison Park Funding VI, Ltd.:

  $30,000,000 Class B Floating Rate Notes Due 2021, Upgraded to
  Aa1 (sf); previously on August 18, 2011 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

  $28,500,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
  Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on August 18, 2011 Upgraded to
  Baa1 (sf)

  $18,000,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
  Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on August 18, 2011 Upgraded
  to Baa3 (sf)

  $17,500,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
  Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on August 18, 2011 Upgraded to
  Ba2 (sf)

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

  $302,500,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes Due 2021, Affirmed
  Aaa (sf); previously on October 18, 2007 Assigned Aaa (sf)

  $76,000,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Notes Due 2021, Affirmed
  Aaa (sf); previously on August 18, 2011 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Madison Park Funding VI, Ltd., issued in September 2007, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period will end in January 2015.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions reflect the benefit of the short period of
time remaining before the end of the deal's reinvestment period in
January 2015. In light of the reinvestment restrictions during the
amortization period, and therefore the limited ability of the
manager to effect significant changes to the current collateral
pool, Moody's analyzed the deal assuming a higher likelihood that
the collateral pool characteristics will maintain a positive
buffer relative to certain covenant requirements. In particular,
Moody's assumed that the deal will benefit from lower weighted
average rating factor ("WARF"), higher weighted average recovery
rate ("WARR") and weighted average spread ("WAS") compared to the
covenant levels. Moody's modeled a WARF, WARR, and WAS of 2715,
49.98% and 3.29%, respectively, compared to covenant levels of
2800, 45% and 2.83%, respectively.

Moody's also notes that the transaction's over-collateralization
ratios have steadily increased since January 2014. Based on the
trustee's October 2014 report, the over-collateralization (OC)
ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, Class D and Class E notes are
reported at 129.41%, 120.97%, 116.18% and 111.88%, respectively,
versus January 2014 levels of 128.95%, 120.54%, 115.77% and
111.49%, 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 commence and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

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

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

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes 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% (2172)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: +1

Class C: +3

Class D: +3

Class E: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3258)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: -2

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 $528.8 million, defaulted
par of $3.95 million, a weighted average default probability of
17.36% (implying a WARF of 2715), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 49.98%, a diversity score of 60 and a weighted
average spread of 3.29%.

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.


MARATHON CLO: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to
Marathon CLO VII Ltd./Marathon CLO VII LLC's $411.25 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 S&P's view of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the rated notes through
      the subordination of cash flows that are payable to the
      subordinated notes.  The transaction's credit enhancement,
      which is sufficient to withstand the defaults applicable for
      the supplemental tests (not counting the excess spread), and
      cash flow structure, which can withstand the default rate
      projected by Standard & Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as
      assessed by Standard & Poor's using the assumptions and
      methods outlined in its corporate collateralized debt
      obligation (CDO) criteria.

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

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

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.  The
      transaction's ability to pay timely interest and ultimate
      principal on the rated notes, assessed using S&P's cash flow
      analysis and assumptions commensurate with the assigned
      ratings under various interest rate scenarios, including
      LIBORs ranging from 0.2316%-13.8385%.

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

   -- The transaction's reinvestment overcollateralization test, a
      failure of which will lead to the reclassification of excess
      interest proceeds that are available before paying uncapped
      administrative expenses and fees, subordinated hedge
      payments, amounts into the reserve account, collateral
      manager incentive fees, and subordinated note payments, as
      principal proceeds to purchase additional collateral assets
      during the reinvestment period.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Marathon CLO VII Ltd./Marathon CLO VII LLC

  Class                   Rating               Amount
                                              (mil. $)
  A-1                     AAA (sf)             272.65
  A-2                     AA (sf)               54.95
  B (deferrable)          A (sf)                36.40
  C (deferrable)          BBB- (sf)             28.60
  D (deferrable)          BB- (sf)              18.65
  Subordinated notes      NR                    49.50

NR--Not rated.


MARATHON REAL 2006-1: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on 5 Cert. Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all 11 classes of Marathon Real Estate
CDO 2006-1.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations are due to stable pool performance, continued
paydown to the class A-1 and better than expected recoveries on
several assets.

Since the prior rating action in November 2013, class A-1
received paydown of approximately $114 million primarily from six
full loan payoffs, one discounted payoff, and scheduled
amortization. Realized losses totaled approximately $23.5 million
over the same period. The CDO is over collateralized by
approximately $30 million, as of the October 2014 trustee report.

The percentage of defaulted assets declined to 7.2% compared to
9.1% at last review. Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOC) also represent
a smaller percentage of the pool at 12.2% compared to 28.2% the
prior year. The Fitch derived weighted average rating of the rated
securities declined to 'BB-/B+' compared to 'BB/BB' over the same
period.

Per the October 2014 trustee report, and per Fitch categorization,
approximately 47.6% of the total collateral is whole loans or A-
notes, while 5.8% is B-notes and 0.2% is principal cash. With
respect to CUSIP securities, commercial mortgage backed securities
(CMBS) represent 33.6% of the collateral, followed by CRE CDOs
(7.3%), REIT debt (2.0%), and other rated debt (3.5%).

Under Fitch's methodology, approximately 57.8% of the portfolio is
modeled to default in the base case stress scenario, defined as
the 'B' stress. In this scenario, the modeled average cash flow
decrease is 7% from generally year-end (YE) 2013 reporting.
Recoveries were modeled at 47.2% in the base case.

The largest component of Fitch's base case loss expectation is the
modeled losses on the rated debt collateral (46.4% of the pool).

The second largest component of Fitch's base case loss expectation
is a whole loan (9.3%) secured by a 363-key limited service hotel
located on Manhattan's Upper West Side. The sponsor has been
converting the property's single-occupancy rooms into traditional
rooms on an ongoing basis. There are 50 SRO units left and the
borrower is currently exploring the option of converting to
another flag. YE 2013 net cash flow increased 20% from the prior
year. Fitch modeled losses on this over leveraged asset in its
base case scenario.

The transaction was analyzed according to the 'Surveillance
Criteria for U.S. CREL CDOs and CMBS Large Loan Floating-Rate
Transactions', which applies stresses to property cash flows and
debt service coverage ratio tests to project future default levels
for the underlying CREL portfolio. Recoveries are based on
stressed cash flows and Fitch's long-term capitalization rates.
The rated securities (CUSIP) portion of the collateral was
analyzed according to the 'Global Rating Criteria for Structured
Finance CDOs', whereby the default and recovery rates are derived
from Fitch's Structured Finance Portfolio Credit Model. Rating
default rates and rating recovery rates from both the CREL and
CUSIP portions of the collateral are then blended on a weighted
average basis. The default levels were then compared to the
breakeven levels generated by Fitch's cash flow model of the CDO
under the various defaults timing and interest rate stress
scenarios. The breakeven rates for classes A-1 through E pass or
exceed the cash flow model at the ratings listed below. Further
upgrades were not warranted at this time given the transaction's
increasing concentration and lower Fitch derived weighted average
rating for the CUSIP collateral.

The Positive and Stable Outlooks on classes A-1 through E
generally reflect the classes' seniority in the capital stack and
expectation of increasing credit enhancement from further paydowns
over the near term. The 'CCC' and below ratings for classes F
through K are based on a deterministic analysis that considers
Fitch's base case loss expectations for the pool and the current
percentage of defaulted assets and Fitch Loans of Concern
factoring in anticipated recoveries relative to each class' credit
enhancement.

Rating Sensitivities

An additional stress scenario against the current cash flows of
the underlying collateral was considered in Fitch's ratings.
If the collateral continues to repay at or near par, classes A-2
and B may be upgraded. Should realized losses increase from
current expectations, further downgrades to the distressed classes
may occur.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $186,149,594 class A-1 at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $50,000,000 class A-2 at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Positive;
-- $99,000,000 class B at 'BBsf'; Outlook Positive;
-- $51,500,000 class C at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $16,000,000 class D at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $14,000,000 class E at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $23,500,000 class F at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $15,500,000 class G at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $26,000,000 class H at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $56,300,000 class J at 'CCCsf'; RE 50%;
-- $26,700,000 class K at 'CCCsf'; RE 0%.


MCF CLO IV: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 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 ratings reflect:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the 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 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 0.234% -13.839%.

   -- 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 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) as principal proceeds
      for the purchase of additional collateral obligations during
      the reinvestment period.

RATINGS LIST

MCF CLO IV LLC

                          Amount
Class       Rating      (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 2006-7: S&P Cuts Rating on Class A & B Certs to 'BB'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2006-7 class A
and B certificates related to Goldman Sachs Inc.'s series A, C,
and D noncumulative preferred stock to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

This action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in S&P's view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2006-8: S&P Cuts Rating on Class A & B Certs to 'BB'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2006-8 class A
and B certificates related to Goldman Sachs Inc.'s series A, C,
and D noncumulative preferred stock to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in S&P's view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2006-10: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2006-10 class
A and B certificates related to Morgan Stanley's series A
floating-rate noncumulative preferred stock to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

This action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in S&P's view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2006-11: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2006-11 class
A and B certificates related to Morgan Stanley's series A
floating-rate noncumulative preferred stock to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

This action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in S&P's view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2006-12: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2006-12, class
A and B certificates, auction pass-through certificates related to
Bank of America's noncumulative preferred stock, series D, to 'BB'
from 'BB+'.

This action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in S&P's view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2007-2: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2007-2 class A
and B certificates related to Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s series 5
floating-rate noncumulative preferred stock to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

This action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in our view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2007-3: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2007-3 class A
and B auction pass through certificates to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

This action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in S&P's view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2007-4: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2007-4 class A
and B certificates to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

This action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in S&P's view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MERRILL LYNCH 2007-5: S&P Lowers Rating on A & B Certs to 'BB'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on Merrill
Lynch Auction Preferred Pass-Through Trust's series 2007-5 class A
and B certificates related to Bank of America's series E floating-
rate noncumulative preferred stock to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

This action follows Standard & Poor's Sept. 29, 2014, lowering of
its rating on the underlying bonds to 'BB' from 'BB+'.

The rating reflects the rating on the underlying bonds.

          STANDARD & POOR's 17g-7 DISCLOSURE REPORT

SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a
credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in
the Rule, to include a description of the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and
a description of how they differ from the representations,
warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar
securities.

There is no Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in
this credit rating report because, in S&P's view, there are no
representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available
to investors.


MORGAN STANLEY 2011-C1: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on G Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Affirms MSC 2011-C1   Ratings   Endorsement Policy
Fitch Ratings-New York-19 November 2014

Fitch Ratings has affirmed 11 classes of Morgan Stanley Capital I
Trust (MSC) commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series
2011-C1 due to stable performance.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect the overall stable performance of the
pool.  No loans have been in special servicing since issuance.
One loan appears on the servicer watchlist (2.21% of the pool) due
to upcoming lease expirations and is a Fitch Loan of Concern.

As of the Oct. 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 4.1% to $1.48 billion from
$1.55 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, five loans
(4.8% of the pool) are defeased, including the Murdock Plaza loan
(3.6% of the pool), which was a Fitch Loan of Concern at last
review.  Nominal interest shortfalls are currently affecting class
M.

The largest loan in the pool (15.8%) is secured by Christiana
Mall, a 1.1 million square foot (sf) regional mall (435,219 owned)
located in Newark, DE.  The mall is anchored by Macy's, JCPenney,
Target, Nordstrom, and Barnes and Noble (all anchor-owned).
Collateral tenants include Forever 21, H&M, Anthropologie,
Victoria's Secret, and Apple.  Total mall occupancy as of year-end
2013 was 99.7%, compared to 94% at issuance.  The mall is the
largest in DE and benefits from the absence of a state sales tax.
The collateral is performing in line with underwritten
expectations with year-end 2013 occupancy of 99.7% and a net
operating income (NOI) debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 3.00x
on an interest-only basis.  The loan sponsors are Prime Property
Fund and General Growth Properties.

The second largest loan in the pool (11.6%) is secured by
Pearlridge Mall, a 1.3 million sf mall located in Honolulu, HI.
The mall is anchored by Sears and Macy's.  Macy's recently
extended their lease to Feb. 2027 from Aug. 2014.  Major tenants
include Bed, Bath, & Beyond, Pearlridge Theatres, and Toys R Us.
The property also has 160,909 sf of office space.  The collateral
is performing in line with underwritten expectations with year-end
2013 occupancy of 95.7% and a NOI DSCR of 3.16x on an interest-
only basis.  The loan sponsors are Blackstone and Glimcher Realty
Trust.

The third largest loan in the pool (11.5%) is secured by Michigan
Plaza, a two-building, 1.8 million sf office complex consisting of
205 North Michigan Avenue and 225 North Michigan Avenue located in
Chicago, IL.  The buildings can be connected on the lower 16
floors and share a common lobby.  Major tenants include Blue Cross
& Blue Shield Association and Fox Television.  No other tenant
represents more than four percent of the net rentable area.  The
collateral is performing in line with underwritten expectations
with year-end 2013 occupancy of 83.7% and a NOI DSCR of 2.01x.
The loan is sponsored by Loeb Partners Realty LLC and Sir Joseph
Hotung.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on all classes 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.  While the pool
has a higher percentage of defeasance than pools of similar
vintages, upgrades will be limited by the concentrated nature of
the pool and additional stresses may be applied to the non-
defeased loans to account for the concentration.

Fitch affirms these classes as indicated:

   -- $24.4 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $597.2 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $105.1 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $404.1 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $1;130.8 million class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $60 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $89 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $85.2 million class D at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $19.4 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $13.5 million class F at 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $15.5 million class G at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate classes H through M or interest only class X-
B.


MORGAN STANLEY 2006-HQ9: Fitch Cuts Class E Certs Rating to 'Bsf'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded four classes and affirmed 20 classes
of Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust (MSC 2006-HQ9) commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-HQ9.

Key Rating Drivers

The downgrades reflect an increase in expected losses primarily
associated with loans in special servicing. Affirmations to the
rake classes are due to the stable performance of the underlying
collateral and continued loan amortization. Fitch modeled losses
of 4.5% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the original
pool balance total 7.3%, including $112.7 million (4.3% of the
original pool balance) in realized losses to date. Fitch has
designated 45 loans (22.4%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which
includes five specially serviced assets (3.2%).

As of the October 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 32.4% to $1.76 billion from
$2.6 billion at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, nine loans
(28.5% of the pool) are defeased. Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes H through S.

The largest contributor to expected losses is a 176,990 sf office
property (0.6%) located in Newport, KY. Performance of the
property deteriorated significantly with occupancy declining to
25% in 2012 due to two major tenants vacating at lease expiration.
Occupancy has since recovered to 48% as of December 2013; however,
cash flow remains insufficient to service the debt. Lease
expirations of the remaining tenants occur in 2016 and beyond. The
loan is current as of October 2014. According to Reis, the
Northern Kentucky submarket of Cincinnati reported a vacancy rate
of 16.7% with average asking rents of $19.40 per square foot (psf)
compared to $17.43 psf for the subject property.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a 236,019 sf
office property (0.8%) located in Pittsburgh, PA. As of August
2014, occupancy declined to 15% with a major tenant vacating at
lease expiration. An additional 3.1% of the building expires
through the end of 2014. The servicer is proceeding with
foreclosure. According to Reis, the central business district
submarket of Pittsburgh reported a vacancy rate of 15.7% with
average asking rents of $23.32 per square foot (psf) compared to
$18.63 psf for the subject property.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a loan (1.5%
of the pool) secured by a portfolio of two office buildings
totaling 608,054 sf in downtown Indianapolis. The loan transferred
to special servicing in April 2014 when the sponsor notified the
servicer that it would no longer contribute capital to fund
property shortfalls. As of September 2014, occupancy for the
portfolio declined to 65%. The occupancy has the potential to
decline further pending the outcome of a proposed criminal justice
center which would consolidate related offices and agencies, two
of which are located in the subject property. The servicer is
proceeding with foreclosure. According to Reis, the central
business district submarket of Indianapolis reported a vacancy
rate of 17% with average asking rents of $19.25 per square foot
(psf) compared to $16.48 psf for the subject property.

Rating Sensitivities

Rating Outlooks on classes A-4 through E remain Stable due to
sufficient credit enhancement of the classes. The Distressed
classes (those rated below 'B') may be subject to further
downgrades as additional losses are realized.

Fitch downgrades the following classes and assigns Rating Outlooks
and Recovery Estimates (REs):

-- $22.4 million class E to 'Bsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook to Stable
    from Negative;
-- $25.7 million class F to 'CCCsf' from 'Bsf'; RE 95%;
-- $25.7 million class G to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $28.9 million class H to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%.

Fitch affirms the following classes:

-- $140.6 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $656.3 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $292.9 million class A-4FL at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $256.5 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $202 million class A-J at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $19.2 million class B at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $35.3 million class C at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $28.9 million class D at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $6.9 million class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $2.2 million class ST-B at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1.1 million class ST-C at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $2.3 million class ST-D at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $1.3 million class ST-E at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%.

The ST classes are related to a non-pooled B-Note secured by 633
17th Street. The underlying collateral is an office building in
the central business district of Denver, CO. Fitch affirms these
classes as no significant changes have occurred since the previous
review. As of March 2014, the trailing twelve month NOI was in-
line with NOI levels in 2013 and at issuance.

Fitch does not rate the class S, ST-F and DP certificates. Fitch
previously withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class X and
X-MP certificates.


MORGAN STANLEY 2013-C13: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Class G Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 classes of Morgan Stanley Bank of
America Merrill Lynch Trust, Series 2013-C13 pass-through
certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are due to the overall stable performance of the
underlying collateral pool. Fitch reviewed the most recently
available financial performance data for the transaction, as well
as updated rent rolls for the top 15 loans, which represent 58.2%
of the transaction. Of the loans in the pool, 73.2% reported 2013
year-end financials.

As of the October 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 0.5% to $1,165.6 million
from $1,172 million at issuance. Currently there are no specially
serviced or defeased loans. Fitch has designated three loans (2%)
as Fitch Loans of Concern (LOC), all of which are also reported on
the servicer Watchlist. The loans are on the Watchlist for various
reasons including one for delinquent taxes and the others for
lease rollover and/or tenants with possible store closings.

The largest loan in the pool, Stonestown Galleria (13.1% of the
pool), is a 10-year partial IO loan (i.e. interest-only for the
initial 60 months). The whole loan consists of four pari passu
notes. Only A1, A3 and A4 are included in this transaction. The A2
note ($50 million) is securitized in MSBAM 2014-C14. The
collateral consists of 585,758 sf of an 853,546 sf regional mall
located in San Francisco, CA. The property is anchored by Macy's
(non-collateral) and Nordstrom. Sponsored by GGP, the loan is
performing in line with expectations at issuance. Per the June
2014 rent roll, the property was 97.5% occupied, compared to 94.5%
at issuance. The servicer reported second quarter 2014 (2Q'14)
debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) was 3.38x, compared to 2.82x at
year-end (YE) 2013 and 2.32x at issuance.

The second largest loan, The Mall at Chestnut Hill (12.1%), is a
10 year IO loan. Collateral consists of 168,642 sf of a 465,895 sf
regional mall located in Newton, MA, a suburb of Boston. The
property is anchored by two Bloomingdale's stores (non-collateral)
with Crate and Barrel, Banana Republic and Cheesecake Factory as
major tenants. Per the June 2014 rent roll, the property was 95%
occupied, compared to 96.5% at issuance. The loan is sponsored by
Simon Properties. The servicer reported DSCR for the 2Q'14 was
1.94x, compared to 1.99x at UW.

The third largest loan, Residence Inn by Marriott Philadelphia
(4.5%), is secured by a 290-key extended stay hotel located in
Philadelphia, PA. Per the August 2014 STR report, trailing 12-
month (TTM) occupancy, average daily rate (ADR) and revenue per
available room (RevPar) were 78.1%, $155, $121, respectively,
compared to 77.3%, $154, and $119 at issuance. The servicer
reported 2Q'14 DSCR was 1.62x, compared to 1.52x at issuance. The
loan is sponsored by GHC Properties.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook for all classes remains Stable. Due to the
recent issuance of the transaction and stable performance, Fitch
does not foresee positive or negative ratings migration until a
material economic or asset-level event changes the transaction's
portfolio-level metrics.

Fitch affirms these classes as indicated:

   -- $43.2 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $75.6 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $77.2 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $220 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $274.4 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $75.9million class A-S at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $56 million class B at 'AA-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- Class PST Exchangeable Certificates at 'A-sf', Outlook
      Stable;
   -- $44.8 million class C at 'A-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $48.5 million class D at 'BBB-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $13.7 million class E at 'BB+sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $11.2 million class F at 'BB-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $10 million class G at 'B-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- Interest - Only class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- Interest - Only class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;.

Fitch does not rate the class G or class X-C certificates.


N-STAR REL VI: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to B+
--------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1 and A-R notes from N-Star REL CDO VI Ltd., a commercial real
estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction.  At
the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on 10 other classes from
the same transaction.

The rating actions 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 rating methodology and assumptions
for U.S. and Canadian commercial mortgage-backed securities
(CMBS), and its CMBS global property evaluation methodology
criteria.  The upgrades also reflect the transaction's
amortization.  As of the Sept. 16, 2014, note valuation report,
classes A-1 and A-R had current outstanding balances of $115.4
million and $46.2 million respectively, down from $174.8 million
and $70.0 million at issuance.

According to the Oct. 31, 2014, monthly trustee report, the
transaction's collateral totaled $373.6 million, while the
transaction's liabilities totaled $358.8 million, down from $442.0
million in liabilities at issuance.  The transaction's current
asset pool includes:

   -- Nine whole loans and senior participation loans ($148.7
      million, 39.8%);

   -- Seven mezzanine loans ($85.5 million; 22.6%);

   -- Six junior loans and participation interests ($65.9 million,
      17.6%);

   -- Six CRE CDO securities ($47.2 million; 12.6%);

   -- Two CMBS securities ($17.8 million, 4.8%); and

   -- One preferred equity loan ($9.4 million, 2.5%).

The trustee report noted two defaulted assets: one mezzanine loan
($16.3 million, 4.4%) and one junior participation loan ($13.9
million, 3.7%).  The defaulted loans are:

   -- Hancock Mezzanine loan ($16.3 million, 4.4%); and

   -- 123 N Wacker Junior participation loan($13.9 million, 3.7%).

S&P did not estimate any recoveries for the defaulted loans.

Using loan performance information provided by the collateral
manager, S&P applied asset-specific recovery rates in its analysis
of the performing loans ($233.5 million, 61.9%) using its criteria
for U.S. and Canadian CMBS and its CMBS global property evaluation
methodology.  S&P did not apply asset-specific recovery rate to
the Highland Village and the Mercer Greene whole loans.

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

According to the Oct. 31, 2014, trustee monthly report, the deal
passed all ofits overcollateralization and interest coverage
tests.

RATINGS LIST

N-Star REL CDO VI Ltd.
Collateralized debt obligations sereis 2006-1

                        Rating       Rating
Class    Identifier    To           From
A-1      62940PAA5     B+ (sf)      B- (sf)
A-R      62940PAJ6     B+ (sf)      B- (sf)
A-2      62940PAH0     CCC+ (sf)    CCC+ (sf)
B        62940PAB3     CCC+ (sf)    CCC+ (sf)
C        62940PAC1     CCC+ (sf)    CCC+ (sf)
D        62940PAD9     CCC (sf)     CCC (sf)
E        62940PAE7     CCC (sf)     CCC (sf)
F        62940PAF4     CCC- (sf)    CCC- (sf)
G        62940PAG2     CCC- (sf)    CCC- (sf)
H        62940CAA4     CCC- (sf)    CCC- (sf)
J        62940CAB2     CCC- (sf)    CCC- (sf)
K                      CCC- (sf)    CCC- (sf)


NEUBERGER BERMAN XVIII: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Neuberger Berman CLO XVIII Ltd./Neuberger Berman CLO
XVIII LLC's $459.50 million floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is an asset-backed securities transaction backed
by a revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly syndicated
senior secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Nov. 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 subordinated notes.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (not counting excess spread), and cash flow structure, which
      can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation (CDO) criteria.

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

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

   -- The asset manager's experienced management team.

   -- The transaction's ability to make 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 0.2321%-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
      rated notes' outstanding balance.

   -- The transaction's reinvestment overcollateralization test, a
      failure of which will lead to the reclassification of a
      certain amount of excess interest proceeds, that are
      available before paying uncapped administrative expenses and
      fees; subordinated hedge termination payments; collateral
      manager incentive fees; and subordinated note payments, to
      principal proceeds to purchase additional collateral assets
      during the reinvestment period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Neuberger Berman CLO XVIII Ltd./Neuberger Berman CLO XVIII LLC

Class                Rating               Amount
                                        (mil. $)
A-1                  AAA (sf)             307.50
A-2                  AA (sf)               65.00
B (deferrable)       A (sf)                37.00
C (deferrable)       BBB (sf)              30.00
D (deferrable)       BB (sf)               20.00
Subordinated notes   NR                    53.63

NR--not rated


OFSI FUND III: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on 2 Note Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by OFSI Fund III Ltd.:

US$28,750,000 Class D Fourth Priority Subordinated Deferrable
Notes due 2019, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on July 18, 2014
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

US$25,500,000 Class I Combination Notes due 2019 (current rated
balance of $1,196,675), Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on July
18, 2014 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

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

US$200,000,000 Class A-1 First Priority Senior Notes due 2019
(current balance of $16,348,566), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on
July 18, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

US$140,625,000 Class A-2 First Priority Delayed Draw Senior Notes
due 2019 (current balance of $11,495,085), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on July 18, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

US$39,500,000 Class B Second Priority Senior Notes due 2019,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 18, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

US$36,500,000 Class C Third Priority Subordinated Deferrable Notes
due 2019, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 18, 2014 Upgraded
to Aaa (sf)

US$11,500,000 Class E-1 Fifth Priority Subordinated Deferrable
Notes due 2019, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on July 18, 2014
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

US$9,125,000 Class E-2 Fifth Priority Subordinated Deferrable
Notes due 2019, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on July 18, 2014
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

OFSI Fund III, Ltd. issued in September 2006, is a collateralized
loan obligation ("CLO") backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans, with some exposure to middle market loans and
structured finance securities. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in September 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 July 2014. The Class A Notes have
been paid down by $23 million, or 45% since that time. Based on
the trustee's October 2014 report, the over-collateralization (OC)
ratios for the Class A/B, C, D and E Notes are 252.64%, 163.84%,
128.32%, and 111.04%, respectively, versus July 2014 levels of
212.79%, 151.53%, 123.52%, and 109.06%, respectively. In addition,
there is currently $18 million of cash in the principal
collections account available to delever the notes on the next
payment date.

The deal has also benefited from an improvement in the credit
quality of the portfolio since July 2014. Based on Moody's
calculations, the weighted average rating factor is currently 2995
compared to 3270 in July 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 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% (2396)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: +2

Class E-1: +1

Class E-2: +1

Class I Combination Notes: 0

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3594)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: -2

Class E-1: -1

Class E-2: -1

Class I Combination Notes: 0

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $167 million, defaulted par
of 23.7 million, a weighted average default probability of 18.52%
(implying a WARF of 2995), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 46.86%, a diversity score of 24 and a weighted average
spread of 3.72% (before accounting for LIBOR floors).

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 8% of the collateral
pool.


REALT 2007-2: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on Cl. K Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 17 classes
in Real Estate Asset Liquidity Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2007-2 (REALT 2007-2) as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D-1, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. D-2, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. E-1, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E-2, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. XC-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. XC-2, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.9% of the
current balance compared to 1.9% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.2% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 1.5% at the last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in April 2005, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.
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 REALT 2007-2.

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

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

Deal Performance

As of the November 12, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 2% to $273.1
million from $377.3 million at securitization. The certificates
are collateralized by 33 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 14% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting
70% of the pool. One loan, constituting 14% of the pool, has an
investment-grade structured credit assessment. One loan,
constituting 2% of the pool, has defeased and is secured by
Canadian Government securities.

Seven loans, constituting 18% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

The pool has experienced a $486,897 realized loss to date due to
one loan modification. There are currently no loans in special
servicing.

Moody's received full or partial year 2013 operating results for
96% of the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 93%
compared to 92% 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 9% to the
most recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.22%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.29X and 1.15X,
respectively, compared to 1.33X and 1.15X 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 Atrium Pooled
Interest Loan ($38.3 million -- 14% of the pool), which represents
a participation interest in the senior component of a $189 million
mortgage loan. There is a subordinate B Note held outside the
trust. The loan is secured by a 1 million square foot (SF) retail
and office complex located in the Downtown North submarket of
Toronto, Ontario. The property is directly above a TT subway stop,
Toronto's mass transit subway system. The loans sponsor is H&R
REIT. Moody's structured credit assessment and stressed DSCR are
a1 (sca.pd) and 1.82X, respectively, compared to a2 (sca.pd) and
1.76X at the last review.

The top three conduit loans represent 21.8% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the Sundance Pooled Interest Loan ($24.1
million -- 8.8% of the pool), which represents a participation
interest in a $48.2 million loan. The loan is secured by a 180,000
SF office building located in Calgary, Alberta. Worley Parsons
Canada Services, Ltd. is the lead tenant at the property,
occupying approximately 94% of the net rentable area through
September/October 2016. As of December 2013, the property was 100%
leased. Due to the tenant concentration risk, and the impending
vacancy, which was obtained from the Sponsor's website, Moody's
valuation incorporated a lit/dark analysis. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 112% and 0.85X, respectively, compared to 96%
and 0.99X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the 55 St. Clair Pooled Interest Loan
($18 million -- 6.6% of the pool), which represents a
participation interest in a $36 million loan. The loan is secured
by a 250,000 SF office building located in downtown Toronto,
Ontario. This loan is full recourse to the borrower, Incore
Equities, Inc. and Slate Toronto Core Office, Inc. As of September
2014, the property was 87% leased. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 105% and 0.92X, respectively, compared to 108% and 0.9X at the
last review.

The third largest loan is the Place Louis Riel Loan ($17.3 million
-- 6.3% of the pool), which was originally secured by a 302
apartment suite-style boutique hotel in downtown Winnipeg,
Manitoba. However, per recent discussions with the Master
Servicer, the Sponsor is converted 119 units to traditional
apartments by year-end 2014. The conversion has been funded with
equity from the borrower. It is unclear if there are future plans
to convert the remaining units to apartments. This loan is not
recourse to the borrower. Performance is expected to increase in
2014 as the apartment units are rented. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 123% and 0.92X, respectively, compared to 110% and 1.03X
at the last review.


SDART 2014-5: Moody's Rates on Class E Notes '(P)Ba2'
-----------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to the
notes to be issued by Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-
5 (SDART 2014-5). This is the fifth SDART transaction of the year
for Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SCUSA).

The complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5

Class A-1 Notes, Assigned (P)P-1 (sf)

Class A-2-A Notes, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Class A-2-B Notes, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

Class C Notes, Assigned (P)A1 (sf)

Class D Notes, Assigned (P)Baa2 (sf)

Class E Notes, Assigned (P)Ba2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's said the ratings are based on the quality of the
underlying auto loans and their expected performance, the strength
of the structure, the availability of excess spread over the life
of the transaction, and the experience and expertise of SCUSA as
servicer.

Moody's median cumulative net loss expectation for the 2014-5 pool
is 17.0% and the Aaa level is 49.0%. The loss expectation was
based on an analysis of SCUSA's portfolio vintage performance as
well as performance of past securitizations, and current
expectations for future economic conditions.

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

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

Up

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

Down

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


SDART 2014-5: Fitch to Assign BB Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to assign the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to the notes issued by Santander Drive Auto Receivables
Trust 2014-5:

   -- $176,300,000 class A-1 notes 'F1+sf';
   -- $83,250,000 class A-2A notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $249,750,000 class A-2B notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $123,050,000 class A-3 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $123,530,000 class B notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $152,940,000 class C notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $91,180,000 class D notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $58,820,000 class E notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Weaker Credit Quality: 2014-5 is backed by marginally weaker
collateral versus prior 2013-2014, with a slightly weaker internal
weighted average (WA) loss forecast score (LFS) of 556 and FICO of
598. The WA seasoning is two months, new vehicles total 36%, and
the pool is geographically diverse.

Increase in Extended Term Contracts: Loans with terms of 60+
months rose to 93.9%, the highest to date, driven by a notable
increase in 73-75-month term loans totaling 15%, the highest seen
to date. Fitch applied a stress to the loss proxy to account for
the risk posed by these loans since they are not seasoned and
perform weaker than loans with 72-month term or less.

Sufficient Credit Enhancement and Structure: The cash flow
distribution is a sequential pay structure. Initial hard credit
enhancement (CE) totals 48.25% for the class A notes, unchanged
from 2014-4 (not rated [NR]), but is higher versus the previous
Fitch-rated transaction (2014-2) for the class A-C notes.

Stable Portfolio/Securitization Performance: Although within range
of 2010-2012 performance, recent 2013 losses are higher to date
tracking slightly above the 2012 vintage, driven by marginally
weaker collateral underwriting and lower recoveries from softer
used vehicle values.

Stable Corporate Health: SCUSA recorded solid financial results
recently and has been profitable since 2007. Fitch rates
Santander, majority owner of SCUSA, 'A-/F2', Outlook Stable.
Consistent Origination/Underwriting/Servicing: SCUSA demonstrates
adequate abilities as originator, underwriter, and servicer,
evidenced by historical portfolio delinquency, loss experience,
and securitization performance. Fitch deems SCUSA capable to
service 2014-5.

Legal Structure Integrity: The legal structure of the transaction
should provide that a bankruptcy of SCUSA would not impair the
timeliness of payments on the securities.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults and loss
severity on defaulted receivables could produce loss levels higher
than the base case. This in turn could result in Fitch taking
negative rating actions on the notes.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5 to increased credit
losses over the life of the transaction. Fitch's analysis found
that the transaction displays some sensitivity to increased
defaults and credit losses. This shows a potential downgrade of
one or two categories under Fitch's moderate (1.5x base case loss)
scenario, especially for the subordinate bonds. The notes could
experience downgrades of three or more rating categories,
potentially leading to distressed ratings (below 'Bsf') or
possibly default, under Fitch's severe (2.5x base case loss)
scenario.


SEQUOIA MORTGAGE 2014-4: Fitch Rates Class B-4 Certificate 'BBsf'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings assigns the following ratings to the Sequoia
Mortgage Trust 2014-4 (SEMT 2014-4):

-- $223,601,000 class A-1 certificate 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

-- $223,601,000 class A-2 exchangeable certificate 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;

-- $74,534,000 class A-3 certificate 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

-- $21,685,000 class A-4 certificate 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

-- $319,820,000 class A-5 exchangeable certificate 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;

-- $298,135,000 class A-6 exchangeable certificate 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;

-- $319,820,000 class A-IO notional certificate 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $223,601,000 class A-IO1 notional certificate 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $319,820,000 class A-IO2 notional certificate 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $6,830,000 class B-1 certificate 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;

-- $5,464,000 class B-2 certificate 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;

-- $4,099,000 class B-3 certificate 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;

-- $1,878,000 non-offered class B-4 certificate 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable.

The $3,415,351 non-offered class B-5 certificate is not rated by
Fitch.

The 'AAAsf' rating on the senior certificates reflects the 6.35%
subordination provided by the 2.00% class B-1, 1.60% class B-2,
1.20% class B-3, 0.55% non-offered class B-4 and 1.00% non-offered
class B-5. The class B-5 is not rated by Fitch. The class A-7
through A-29 and class A-IO3 and A-IO4 that were presented at the
time of marketing will not be issued, and as a result, Fitch has
withdrawn its ratings.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Strong Collateral Attributes: The collateral pool consists of 30-
year, fixed-rate, fully documented loans to borrowers with strong
credit profiles, low leverage and substantial liquid reserves.
Third-party, loan-level due diligence was conducted on 82% of the
pool, the results of which, in Fitch's opinion, indicate strong
underwriting controls.

Inclusion of Non-QM Loans: Of the total pool, 472 loans, or 98.5%,
on primary or secondary residences have application dates of Jan.
10, 2014 or later and are, therefore, subject to the Ability-to-
Repay (ATR)/Qualified Mortgage (QM) Rule. Of these, eight loans
were originated as non-QM, resulting in a negligible increase to
the pool's 'AAAsf' loss severity (LS), representing roughly 2% of
the pool. The remaining 98% were classified as safe harbor QM
(SHQM), for which no adjustment was made, or were not subject to
the ATR/QM Rule.

No Geographic Concentration Penalty: The pool is well diversified
geographically with the top 10 metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs) comprising less than 50% of the pool. As a result, Fitch
did not apply a penalty to the pool's lifetime default
expectations. The pool's largest concentration is in the San
Francisco MSA (12.5%), followed by Cambridge (5.1%). Compared to
the prior two SEMT transactions, SEMT 2014-4 is less concentrated
in Seattle, primarily on account of the reduced contribution from
Homestreet Bank.

Market Value Decline Sensitivity: Fitch's sustainable home price
(SHP) model suggests home prices for the pool are overvalued by
roughly 21.1%, which results in an 'Asf' sustainable market value
decline (sMVD) stress above the recent national housing
recession's peak-to-trough experience. A sensitivity analysis was
factored into Fitch's analysis to better align its sMVD stress to
recent observations, which resulted in applying a base sMVD of
16.9%.

Quality Aggregator and Primary Originator: Fitch has reviewed
Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation (Redwood) as an
aggregator and First Republic Bank (FRB), the largest contributing
originator to the pool, as an originator and considers both to be
above average. Fitch factored these qualitative strengths in its
loss expectations. Fitch believes that Redwood's sound acquisition
strategy is also reflected in the very strong performance of the
post-crisis Sequoia pools. Similarly, Fitch considers FRB's low
delinquency and default rates on its securitized loans supportive
of its view on the quality of FRB's origination platform.

Cash Flow Structure: The transaction features a traditional
senior-subordinate, shifting-interest structure. Furthermore, the
trust provides for expenses, including indemnification amounts and
costs of arbitration, to be paid by the net weighted average
coupon (WAC) of the loans, which does not impact the contractual
interest due on the certificates.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's analysis incorporates sensitivity analyses to demonstrate
how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines
(MVDs) than assumed at both the metropolitan statistical area
(MSA) and national levels. The implied rating sensitivities are
only an indication of some of the potential outcomes and do not
consider other risk factors that the transaction may become
exposed to or be considered in the surveillance of the
transaction.

Fitch conducted sensitivity analysis determining how the ratings
would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis
assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the base case
projected 16.9% for this pool. The analysis indicates there is
some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with
the model projection.


SORIN REAL III: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 5 Note Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the
following notes issued by Sorin Real Estate CDO III:

Cl. A-1B, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2013 Affirmed C
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. C-FL, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2013 Affirmed C
(sf)

Cl. C-FX, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2013 Affirmed C
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 23, 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
and Re-REMIC) transactions.

Sorin Real Estate CDO III Ltd. is a static cash CRE CDO
transaction. The transaction is backed by a portfolio of: 1)
commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) (63.4% of collateral
pool balance); 2) asset backed securities (ABS) (28.8%) primarily
in the form of subprime residential mortgage backed securities
(RMBS); and 3) CRE CDO bonds (7.8%). As of the October 8, 2014
payment date, the aggregate note balance of the transaction has
decreased to $835.7 million from $1 billion at issuance, as a
result of the principal paydown directed to the senior most
outstanding class of notes. The paydown was the result of the
combination of regular amortization the failure of certain par
value tests, and reclassification of interest proceeds from
defaulted securities as principal proceeds.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 4708,
compared to 4736 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follows: Aaa-Aa3 and 6.8% compared to 5.2% at
last review; A1-A3 and 5.0% compared to 4.6% at last review; Baa1-
Baa3 and 15.5% compared to 15.8% at last review; Ba1-Ba3 and 10.2%
compared to 12.2% at last review; B1-B3 and 12.5% compared to
13.9% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 50.0% compared to 48.3% at
last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 3.0 years, compared to 3.9 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 6.4%, compared to 13.6% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 7.9%, compared to 9.6% at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for the rated notes,
although a change in one key parameter assumption could be offset
by a change in one or more of the other key parameter assumptions.
The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes in the
recovery rate of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Holding all other key parameters static, reducing the recovery to
0.0% would result in no modeled rating movement on the rated notes
(e.g., one notch implies a rating movement of Baa3 to Ba1).
Increasing the recovery rate by 10% would result in modeled rating
movement on the rated notes of zero to one notch upward (e.g. one
notch up implies a rating movement from Ba1 to Baa3).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment given
the weak recovery and certain 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.


STARWOOD RETAIL 2014-STAR: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to
Starwood Retail Property Trust 2014-STAR's $725.0 million
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2014-STAR.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by cross-collateralized first
mortgage liens on the fee simple interests on three enclosed
regional malls and the leasehold interest in one outdoor regional
mall.  The Mall at Wellington Green ($231.5 million of the
allocated loan amount [ALA]; fee interest) is located in
Wellington, Fla., totaling 1.26 million sq. ft., of which 719,978
sq. ft. serves as collateral.  MacArthur Center ($185.6 million of
the ALA; fee interest) is located in Norfolk, Va., totaling
927,692 sq. ft., of which 514,078 sq. ft. serves as collateral.
Northlake Mall ($170.7 million of the ALA; fee interest) is
located in Charlotte, N.C., totaling 1.07 million sq. ft., of
which 539,813 sq. ft. serves as collateral.  The Mall at Partridge
Creek ($137.0 million of the ALA; fee/leasehold interest) is
located in Clinton Township, Mich., totaling 626,162 sq. ft., of
which 369,910 serves as collateral.

The ratings are based on information as of the Nov. 14, 2014,
closing date.  The class XA-1, XA-2, XB-1, and XB-2 certificates
have been removed as of the closing date.  The mortgage loan
margin increased to 2.05% from 1.85%, which decreased the Standard
& Poor's debt service coverage to 2.06x from 2.17x.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's historic 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

Starwood Retail Property Trust 2014-STAR

Class         Rating(i)               Amount ($)
A             AAA (sf)               381,846,000
B             AA- (sf)                84,854,000
C             A- (sf)                 63,641,000
D             BBB- (sf)               78,067,000
E             BB- (sf)                87,672,000
F             B+ (sf)                 28,920,000

(i) The certificates will be issued to qualified institutional
     buyers according to Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933.


SUGAR CREEK: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on $10.25MM Cl. E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Sugar Creek CLO, Ltd:

$12,500,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2022, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012 Definitive
Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf).

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

$180,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2022,
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 31, 2012 Definitive Rating
Assigned Aaa (sf);

$10,250,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2022, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012 Definitive
Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf).

Sugar Creek CLO, Ltd, issued in May 2012, is a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior secured
loans. The transaction's reinvestment period will end in July
2015.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions reflect the benefit of the shorter period of
time remaining before the end of the deal's reinvestment period in
July 2015. In light of the reinvestment restrictions during the
amortization period, and therefore limited ability of the manager
to effect significant changes to the current collateral pool,
Moody's analyzed the deal assuming a higher likelihood that the
collateral pool characteristics will maintain a positive buffer
relative to certain covenant requirements. In particular, Moody's
assumed that the deal will benefit from lower WARF and higher
recovery rate and diversity levels compared to the covenant
levels. In its base case analysis, Moody's modeled a WARF of 2614
, a recovery rate of 50.50% and diversity of 57 compared to
covenant levels of 2860, 44.00% and 45.

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) Other collateral quality metrics: Reinvestment is allowed until
the end of the reinvestment period in July 2015, and during this
time, the manager has the ability to negatively affect the
collateral quality metrics' existing buffers against the covenant
levels, which could negatively affect the transaction.

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

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% (2091)

Class A: 0

Class D: +3

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3137)

Class A: 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 $275.7 million, no defaulted
par, a weighted average default probability of 20.68% (implying a
WARF of 2614), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of
50.5%, a diversity score of 57 and a weighted average spread of
3.08% (before accounting for LIBOR floors).

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.


SYMPHONY CLO XV: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $12MM Cl. F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to eight classes of
notes issued by Symphony CLO XV, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$3,000,000 Class X Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class X Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

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

$63,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class B-1 Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$15,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Fixed Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class B-2 Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$33,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

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

$30,000,000 Class E Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

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

Ratings Rationale

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

Symphony XV is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured
corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist of
first lien senior secured loans (including participations with
respect to senior secured loans) and eligible investments and up
to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The portfolio will be approximately 73% ramped as
of the closing date.

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

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in February 2014.

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

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 50

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2905

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.05%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.00%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.5 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 2905 to 3341)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2905 to 3777)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-2 Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -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 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.


TELOS CLO 2006-1: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. E Notes to Ba1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by TELOS CLO 2006-1, Ltd.:

  $22,000,000 Class C Fourth Priority Mezzanine Secured Floating
  Rate Deferrable Interest Notes Due 2021, Upgraded to Aaa (sf);
  previously on May 13, 2014 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

  $22,000,000 Class D Fifth Priority Mezzanine Secured Floating
  Rate Deferrable Interest Notes Due 2021, Upgraded to A2 (sf);
  previously on May 13, 2014 Affirmed Baa1 (sf)

  $16,000,000 Class E Sixth Priority Mezzanine Secured Floating
  Rate Deferrable Interest Notes Due 2021, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf);
  previously on May 13, 2014 Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

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

  $30,000,000 Class A-1R First Priority Senior Secured Revolving
  Notes Due 2021 (current outstanding commitment of $2,927,041),
  Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 13, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $80,000,000 Class A-1D First Priority Senior Secured Delayed
  Draw Notes Due 2021 (current outstanding balance of
  $7,805,442), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 13, 2014
  Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $110,000,000 Class A-1T First Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2021 (current outstanding balance of
  $10,732,482), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 13, 2014
  Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $60,000,000 Class A-2 Second Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2021, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 13,
  2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $27,200,000 Class B Third Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate
  Notes Due 2021, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 13, 2014
  Affirmed Aaa (sf)

TELOS CLO 2006-1, Ltd., issued in November 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans, with significant exposure to
middle market loans. The reinvestment period ended in January
2013.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since May 2014. The Class A-1R, A-1D, and
A-1T Notes collectively have been paid down by $46.4 million, or
68.4% since then. Based on Moody's calculations, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class A, B, C, D and E Notes
are currently 242.4%, 181.7%, 151.1%, 129.3% and 117.1%,
respectively, versus May 2014 levels of 192.2%, 158.5%, 138.8%,
123.5% and 114.3%, respectively.

The deal has also benefited from an improvement in the credit
quality of the portfolio since May 2014. Based on Moody's
calculation, the weighted average rating factor (WARF) is
currently 3234 compared to 3505 in May 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 large 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 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% (2587)

Class A-1R: 0

Class A-1T: 0

Class A-1D: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: +2

Class E: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3881)

Class A-1R: 0

Class A-1T: 0

Class A-1D: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -1

Class D: -2

Class E: -0

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $194.6 million, defaulted
par of $15.6 million, a weighted average default probability of
21.5% (implying a WARF of 3234), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 46.7%, a diversity score of 39 and a weighted
average spread of 3.85% (before adjustments for LIBOR floors).

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 and assets without a public rating nor credit estimate,
which represent approximately 5.37% of the collateral pool.


TRAPEZA CDO IV: Moody's Hikes Rating on $14MM Cl. D Notes to Caa3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Trapeza CDO IV, LLC:

$44,500,000 Class C-1 Fourth Priority Secured Floating Rate Notes
due 2034 (current outstanding balance of $51,514,065.03, including
deferred interest), Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on February
5, 2014 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

$44,500,000 Class C-2 Fourth Priority Secured Fixed/Floating Rate
Notes due 2034 (current outstanding balance of $51,645,689.47,
including deferred interest), Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on
February 5, 2014 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

$14,000,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2034 (current outstanding balance of $11,778,138.72, including
deferred interest), Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on February
5, 2014 Upgraded to Ca (sf)

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

$145,000,000 Class A1A First Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes due 2034 (current outstanding balance of
$2,485,204.87), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on February 5, 2014
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$95,000,000 Class A1B Second Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes due 2034, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on February 5,
2014 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

$33,000,000 Class B Third Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate
Notes due 2034, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on February 5, 2014
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Trapeza CDO IV, LLC, issued in October, 2003, is a collateralized
debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank trust preferred
securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
Class A1A notes which led to an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization (OC) ratios since February 2014.

The Class A1A notes have paid down by approximately 85% or $13.9
million since February, using principal proceeds from the
redemption of the underlying assets and the diversion of excess
interest proceeds. Moody's also gave full par credit in its
analysis to one deferring asset that meet certain criteria,
totaling $9 million in par. As a result, the Class C-1 and C-2
notes' par coverage has improved to 87.89% from 83.81% since
February 2014, and that of the Class D notes, to 83.67% from
80.01%, by Moody's calculations. Based on the trustee's October
2014 report, the over-collateralization ratio of the Class A/B
notes was 151.52% (limit 141.50%), versus 144.82% in February
2014, and that of the Class C/D notes, 80.56% (limit 102.0%),
versus 80.63% in February 2014. The Class A-1A notes will continue
to benefit from the diversion of excess interest and the use of
proceeds from redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool.
The Class C-1, C-2 and D notes are currently receiving current
interest, although their deferred interest balance will remain
outstanding as long as the Class C/D OC test continues to fail.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par and
principal proceeds balance (after treating deferring securities as
performing if they meet certain criteria) of $205.3 million,
defaulted/deferring par of $59.7 million, a weighted average
default probability of 7.45% (implying a WARF of 663), and a
weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10%. In addition to
the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models, qualitative
factors are part of rating committee considerations. Moody's
considers the structural protections in the transaction, the risk
of an event of default, recent deal performance under current
market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs. The
simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks that Moody's does not rate
publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that do not
have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an econometric
model developed by Moody's Analytics, to derive credit scores.
Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank obligors
in the pool relies on FDIC Q2-2014 financial data.

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

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 445)

Class A1A: 0

Class A1B: 0

Class B: +1

Class C-1: +1

Class C-2: +1

Class D: 0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 942)

Class A1A: 0

Class A1B: 0

Class B: -1

Class C-1: -1

Class C-2: -1

Class D: 0


UNISON GROUND 2013-1: Fitch Affirms BB- Rating on Class B Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed Unison Ground Lease Funding, LLC
Secured Cellular Site Revenue Notes, series 2013-1 and 2013-2 as:

   -- $98,000,000 class 2013-1 A at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $31,000,000 class 2013-1 B at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $13,600,000 class 2013-2 A at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $4,400,000 class 2013-2 B at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are due to stable performance and continued cash
flow growth since issuance.  The Stable Outlooks reflect the
limited prospect for upgrades given the provision to issue
additional notes.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The classes are expected to remain stable based on continued cash
flow growth due to annual rent escalations and automatic renewal
clauses resulting in higher debt service coverage ratios since
issuance.  The ratings have been capped at 'A' due to the
specialized nature of the collateral and the potential for changes
in technology to affect long-term demand for wireless tower space.

The certificates represent beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 1,056 cellular sites securing
one fixed-rate loan.  As of the Nov. 2014 distribution date, the
aggregate principal balance of the notes remains unchanged at $147
million since issuance.  The notes are interest only for the
entire seven-year period.

The ownership interest in the cellular sites consists of perpetual
easements, long-term easements, prepaid leases, and fee interests
in land, rooftops, or other structures on which site space is
allocated for placement of tower and wireless communication
equipment.  Thus, unlike typical cell tower securitizations in
which the towers serve as collateral, the collateral for this
securitization generally consists of easements and the revenue
stream from the payments the owner of the tower and/or tenants of
the site pay to Unison.

As part of its review, Fitch analyzed the collateral data and site
information provided by the master servicer, Midland Loan
Services.  As of Nov. 15, 2014, aggregate net cash flow increased
4.2% since issuance to $18.4 million.  The Fitch stressed debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR) increased from 1.24x at issuance to
1.31x as a result of the increase in net cash flow.

The ownership interests in the sites consist of 48.8% of revenue
in perpetual easements and 47.7% in limited term easements.  The
limited term easements are generally long term with an average
remaining term in excess of 30 years.


WACHOVIA BANK 2002-C2: Moody's Cuts Cl. IO-I Debt Rating to Caa3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating of one class and
downgraded one class of Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust,
Series 2002-C2 as follows:

Cl. O, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. IO-I, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 10, 2014
Affirmed Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on P&I Class O was affirmed due to the potential for
future interest shortfalls. 74% of the pool balance has been
previously modified and continues to be highly levered.

The rating on the IO Class, Class IO-I, was downgraded due the
weighted average rating factor or WARF of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 12.4% of
the current balance, compared to 14.8% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 0.7% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 0.8% 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, the same as at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.7 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the October 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 97% to $22.4
million from $875.1 million at securitization. The certificates
are collateralized by five mortgage loans ranging in size from 6%
to 59% of the pool. One loan, constituting 6.0% of the pool, has
defeased and is secured by US government securities. There are no
loans that have investment-grade structured credit assessments.

Two loans, constituting 74% 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.

Four loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $3.5 million (for an average loss
severity of 10.1%). There are currently no loans in special
servicing.

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for two poorly
performing loans, estimating an aggregate loss of $2.8 million (a
17% expected loss based on a 55% probability default) from these
troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2014 operating results for 75%. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 36.7%, compared to 37.2% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a
weighted average haircut of 19% 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 1.50X and 3.00X,
respectively, compared to 1.66X and 3.06X 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 87% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Boardwalk at Morris Bridge Apartments Loan
($13.2 million -- 58.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 146-
unit student housing apartment complex located three miles from
the University of South Florida in Temple Terrace, Florida. The
loan was previously modified in August 2012, extending the loan
term 24 months until December 2014, with a possible 1-year
extension till December 2015 along with a rate reduction. Per the
servicer, the borrower is exercising their option to extend to
December 2015. Due to the property's poor performance, Moody's
considers this a troubled loan.

The second largest loan is the Oneida Tower Loan ($3.4 million --
15.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 65,000 square foot
medical office building located in Denver, Colorado. The office
building was built in 1979 and was later renovated in 2002. As of
June 2014, the property was 62% leased compared to 60% leased as
of September 2013. The loan was previously modified in January
2011, increasing the term 36 months to October 2015 along with a
rate reduction. Due to the property's poor performance, Moody's
considers this a troubled loan.

The third largest loan is Dana Maumee Corporate Center Loan ($2.9
million -- 13.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 56,000 square
foot industrial complex located in Maumee, Ohio. The property was
built in 1999 and is 100% leased to Dana Limited LLC through 2021.
Moody's performed a Lit/Dark analysis. Moody's current LTV and
stressed DSCR are 31% and 3.39X respectively, compared to 29% and
3.59X at Moody's last review.


WACHOVIA BANK 2004-C11: S&P Affirms CCC Rating on Class J Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on 11
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust's series 2004-C11, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.

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

The affirmations on the principal- and interest-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, liquidity support available to the classes,
as well as S&P's consideration of interest shortfalls from workout
fees, which are generally equal to 1.00% of all payments of
interest and principal received on the two corrected mortgage
loans, which are the two largest loans remaining in the pool
($166.5 million, 79.7% of the pooled trust balance).

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

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Oct. 20, 2014, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $209.0 million, which is 20.1% of the pool
balance at issuance.  The pool currently includes four loans and
two real estate-owned (REO) assets, down from 54 loans at
issuance.  The two REO assets ($13.7 million, 6.5%) are with the
special servicer, and no loans are reported on the master
servicer's watchlist.  The master servicer, Wells Fargo Bank N.A.,
reported financial information for 100% of the loans in the pool,
of which a majority was year-end 2013 data.

Excluding the two REO assets, S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's
weighted average debt service coverage (DSC) of 1.55x and loan-to-
value (LTV) ratio of 53.2% using a Standard & Poor's weighted
average capitalization rate of 7.80%.

The properties securing the underlying loans are concentrated
within the New Haven-Milford and Greensboro-High Point
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).  Standard & Poor's U.S.
Public Finance group provides credit ratings on one city and one
county (New Haven and Guilford County) that participate within
those MSAs:

   -- New Haven in the New Haven-Milford MSA: S&P considers New
      Haven's (BBB+/Stable general obligation debt rating) economy
      to be strong, with projected per capita effective buying
      income at 78% of the U.S.  The total market value of all
      real estate within the county reached $9 billion for 2015.
      The city's per capita real estate market value was $67,381
      for 2015.  With a population of 0.1 million, the city
      participates in the New Haven-Milford MSA in Connecticut,
      which S&P considers to be strong.  The city's unemployment
      rate for calendar year 2013 was 9%.  The largest loan
      secured by properties located in New Haven is the Brass Mill
      Center & Commons loan.

   -- Guilford County in the Greensboro-High Point MSA: S&P
      considers Guilford County's (AAA/Stable general obligation
      debt rating) economy to be strong, with projected per capita
      effective buying income at 98% of the U.S. The total market
      value of all real estate within the county reached $46
      billion for 2013.  The county's per capita real estate real
      estate market value was $91,256 for 2013.  With a population
      of 0.5 million, the county participates in the Greensboro-
      High Point MSA in North Carolina, which S&P considers to be
      strong.  The largest loan secured by properties located in
      Guilford County is the Four Seasons Town Centre loan.

To date, the transaction has experienced $18.7 million in
principal losses, or 1.8% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 1.9% 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 Oct. 20, 2014, trustee remittance report, two REO assets
in the pool were with the special servicer, CWCapital Asset
Management LLC (CWCapital):

   -- The 10400 Eaton Place REO asset ($8.4 million, 4.0%) is the
      second-smallest asset in the trust and the largest asset
      with special servicer.  The asset has a total reported
      exposure of $8.9 million and is  103,173-sq.-ft. office
      property in Fairfax, Va.  The loan was transferred to
      CWCapital on Feb. 7, 2014, due to imminent default, and
      the property became REO on May 30, 2014.  The reported DSC
      and occupancy for year-end 2013 were 0.81x and 70.2%,
      respectively.  An appraisal reduction amount (ARA) of
      $261,848 is in effect against the loan.  S&P expects a
      minimal loss (less than 25%) upon the asset's eventual
      resolution.

   -- The Plaza 75 Shopping Center REO asset ($5.3 million, 2.5%)
      is the smallest asset in the trust and is with the special
      servicer.  The asset has a total reported exposure of $5.5
      million and is a 126,474-sq.ft. retail property in Phoenix,
      Ariz.  The loan was transferred to CWCapital on Feb. 5,
      2014, due to imminent default, and the property became REO
      on Sept. 23, 2014.  The reported DSC and occupancy for the
      nine months ended Sept. 30, 2013, were 0.47x and 37.5%,
      respectively.  S&P expects a minimal loss upon the asset's
      eventual resolution.

S&P estimated losses for the two specially serviced assets,
arriving at a weighted-average loss severity of 10.0%.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2004-C11

  Class     Rating               Credit enhancement (%)
  A-5       AAA (sf)                   67.05
  A-1A      AAA (sf)                   67.05
  B         AA+ (sf                    53.34
  C         AA (sf)                    47.11
  D         A+ (sf)                    35.90
  E         A (sf)                     30.29
  F         BBB (sf)                   23.44
  G         BB+ (sf)                   17.21
  H         B (sf)                     12.23
  J         CCC (sf)                    4.13
  XC        AAA (sf)                     N/A

N/A--Not applicable.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL 2005-C1: S&P Raises Rating on K Notes to BB+
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on three
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Washington Mutual Asset Securities Corp. series 2005-C1, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.

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

S&P raised its ratings on classes H, J, and K to reflect its
expectation of the available credit enhancement for these classes,
which S&P believes is greater than its most recent estimate of
necessary credit enhancement for the respective rating levels.
The upgrades also follow S&P's views regarding the current and
future performance of the transaction's collateral and available
liquidity support.  In addition, the upgrades reflect the
continued paydown of the classes in a sequential manner, which
reduced the class H outstanding balance to approximately 50% of
its original balance, and the quality of the underlying loan
portfolio, which currently has no loans with the special servicer.

While available credit enhancement levels suggest further positive
rating movement on classes H, J, and K, S&P's analysis factored in
the concentration of the loan portfolio (of the remaining 23
loans, the top two constitute about 55% of the total portfolio
balance), the near-term maturities of the loans, and the liquidity
support available to the classes.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Oct. 27, 2014 trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $13.3 million, which is 2.1% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 23 loans, down from 282
loans at issuance.  One of these assets, El Canyon Industrial Park
($0.6 million, 5.5%) is on the master servicer's watchlist.  The
master servicer, KeyBank N.A., reported financial information for
100.0% of the loans in the pool, of which 96.7% was year-end 2013
data, with the remainder year-end 2012 data.

S&P calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average debt service
coverage (DSC) of 1.65x and a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 29.7%
using a Standard & Poor's weighted average capitalization rate of
7.35%.  The top 10 loans have an aggregate outstanding pool trust
balance of $10.9 million (82.3%).  Using servicer-reported
numbers, we calculated a Standard & Poor's weighted average DSC
and LTV of 1.59x and 32.6%, respectively, for the top 10 loans.

To date, the transaction has experienced $1.2 million in principal
losses.  This represents 0.2% of the original pool trust balance.

Some of the properties securing the underlying loans are
concentrated within the Trenton, N.J. and Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Anaheim, Calif. metropolitan statistical area (MSAs).  Of the top
MSAs, Standard & Poor's U.S. Public Finance Group provides credit
ratings on Mercer County and Los Angeles County, which participate
within those MSAs.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Oct. 27, 2014 trustee remittance report, none of the
assets in the pool are with the special servicer, also KeyBank
N.A.  One loan appears on the master servicer's watchlist.  The El
Canyon Industrial Park loan ($657,960, 4.9%) is the fourth-largest
loan in the transaction.  The loan is on the watchlist due to
tenant leases at the property that are set to expire in the near
term.  Based on the servicer's watchlist comments, three tenants
that occupy about 43% of the space have leases that have either
expired or will expire in the near term.  The loan is secured by a
108,651 sq.-ft. industrial property located in North Hollywood,
Calif.

RATINGS RAISED

Washington Mutual Asset Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2005-C1

          Rating      Rating
Class     To          From               Credit enhancement (%)
H         AA+ (sf)    B+ (sf)                    70.38%
J         A+ (sf)     CCC (sf)                   46.00%
K         BB+ (sf)    CCC- (sf)                  27.72%


WFRBS 2014-C24: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating on Class F Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Outlooks to
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.'s WFRBS
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-C24 Pass-Through Certificates:

   -- $34,202,000 Class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $55,254,000 Class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $86,298,000 Class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $240,000,000 Class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $286,297,000 Class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $59,202,000 Class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $99,234,000c Class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $860,487,000b Class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $44,860,000c Class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $32,625,000c Class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $176,719,000c Class PEX 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $25,829,000ab Class X-C 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $10,875,000ab Class X-D 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $72,047,000a Class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $25,829,000a Class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $10,875,000a Class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to rule 144A/Reg D/Reg S.
(b) Notional amount and interest only.
(c) Class A-S, B and C certificates may be exchanged for class PEX
    certificates, and class PEX certificates may be exchanged for
    class A-S, B and C certificates.

Since Fitch's rating action commentary on Nov. 4, 2014, the issuer
removed the $34,400,000 interest-only class X-SJ, which Fitch had
not expected to rate.

Fitch does not rate the $149,532,000 interest-only class X-B,
$40,781,577 interest-only class X-E, or the $40,781,577 class G.
Fitch also does not rate the $34,400,000 class SJ-A, $28,400,000
class SJ-B, $30,400,000 class SJ-C, or the $53,300,000 class SJ-D,
which represent the beneficial interests in the non-pooled St.
Johns Town Center B note.

The certificates represent beneficial ownership in the trust,
primary assets of which are 86 loans secured by 109 commercial
properties having an aggregate principal balance of approximately
$1.088 billion as of the cutoff date.  The loans were contributed
to the trust by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Rialto
Mortgage Finance, LLC, Liberty Island Group I, LLC, the Royal Bank
of Scotland, C-III Commercial Mortgage, LLC, and Basis Real Estate
Capital II, LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 75.6% of the properties
by balance as well as cash flow analysis and asset summary reviews
on 77.9% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch Leverage: The transaction has high leverage, consistent with
other recent Fitch-rated fixed-rate transactions.  The pool's
Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.20x and 105.8%, respectively, compared
with the first half 2014 averages of 1.19x and 105.6%,
respectively.

Very Limited Amortization: The pool is scheduled to amortize by
only 9.3% of the initial pool balance prior to maturity.
Approximately 29.9% of the pool is full term interest only, 46.9%
of the pool is partial interest only and 23.2% of the pool
consists of amortizing balloon loans.  Fitch-rated transactions in
the first half of 2014 had an average full-term interest-only
percentage of 18.3% and partial interest-only percentage of 37.8%.

Lower Loan Concentration: Loan concentration is lower than that of
other recent transactions.  The largest loan represents 9.5% of
the pool, and the top 10 loans represent 46.2%.  The average top
10 concentrations for first-half 2014 and 2013 conduit
transactions were 52.5% and 54.5%, respectively.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 9.6% below
the most recent 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 WFRBS 2014-C24 certificates and found that the
transaction displays 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
'BBB+sf' could result.  In a more severe scenario, in which NCF
declined a further 30% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of the junior
'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB-sf' could result.  The presale report
includes a detailed explanation of additional stresses and
sensitivities on pages 75 - 76.

The master servicer will be Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
rated 'CMS1-' by Fitch.  The special servicer will be Rialto
Capital Advisors, LLC 'CSS2-'by Fitch.


* Moody's Takes Action on $309MM RMBS Issued by Various Trusts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service, on Nov. 18, 2014, upgraded the ratings
of thirteen tranches and downgraded the ratings of three tranches
from nine transactions issued by various issuers, backed by
Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: ABFC Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2001-
AQ1

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012 Confirmed
at Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Amortizing Residential Collateral Trust, Series 2002-BC6

Cl. A1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: C-BASS 2002-CB4 Trust

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jun 13, 2012
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: Centex Home Equity Loan Trust 2003-A

Cl. M-1, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 23, 2013
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 21, 2014
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-1

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 13, 2013 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Nov 13, 2013 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Nov 13, 2013
Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M-6, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 8, 2011
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: Park Place Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2004-WHQ1

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2014 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2014 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 1, 2013 Affirmed
Ca (sf)

Issuer: Park Place Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2004-WWF1

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Mar 5, 2013 Affirmed
B3 (sf)

Issuer: RAMP Series 2004-RS5 Trust

Cl. M-II-1, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 17, 2012
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: RASC Series 2005-KS1 Trust

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 30, 2014 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 6, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)


* Moody's Takes Rating Action on $203MM RMBS Issued 2004 to 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of seven
tranches and upgraded the ratings of eight tranches backed by
Prime Jumbo RMBS loans, issued by miscellaneous issuers.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Banc of America Funding 2006-2 Trust

  Cl. 3-A-1, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
  Downgraded to B2 (sf)

  Cl. X-IO, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
  Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Issuer: Banc of America Mortgage 2004-2 Trust

  Cl. 1-A-7, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Apr 25, 2013
  Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

  Cl. 1-A-8, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Apr 25, 2013
  Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Banc of America Mortgage 2005-A Trust

  Cl. 1-A-1, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Apr 30, 2010
  Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Citicorp Mortgage Securities Trust, Series 2007-2

  Cl. IA-IO, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 21, 2012
  Downgraded to B1 (sf)

  Cl. IIIA-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Aug 27, 2013
  Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. 2005-2

  Cl. IA-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 15, 2011
  Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Provident Funding Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1

  Cl. 1A-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
  Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

  Cl. 2A-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
  Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

  Cl. 3A-1, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
  Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

  Cl. 3A-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
  Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

  Cl. X, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
  Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Provident Funding Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-2

  Cl. 2-A-1A, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 12, 2010
  Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Thornburg Mortgage Trust 2006-2

  Cl. A-2-B, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
  Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The ratings upgraded are the result of improving
performance of the related pools and/or faster pay-down of the
bonds due to high prepayments/fast liquidations.

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 5.8% in October 2014 from 7.2%
in October 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6% to 7% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


* Moody's Takes Rating Action on $984MM RMBS Issued 1998 to 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of three
tranches and upgraded the ratings of 27 tranches from 15 subprime
RMBS transactions backed by Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: ABSC Home Equity Loan Trust Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2001-HE3

Cl. M2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 12, 2012 Upgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 12, 2012 Confirmed
at C (sf)

Issuer: AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 1998-1

A-5, Downgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012 Confirmed
at A3 (sf)

A-6, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012 Confirmed
at A2 (sf)

Issuer: Argent Securities Inc., Series 2005-W3

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 5, 2014 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. A-2D, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 5, 2014
Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2012
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Issuer: Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
Series 2003-5

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2012 Confirmed
at Ba3 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2012 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2012
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Issuer: Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
Series 2004-5

Cl. M-1, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2012
Confirmed at A2 (sf)

Issuer: CS First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp 2002-HE1

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2011
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: CSFB Home Equity Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-8

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2012
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-FFH3

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 18, 2014 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Feb 18, 2014 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-FFH4

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 5, 2014 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Fremont Home Loan Trust 2005-D

Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 20, 2014
Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 20, 2014
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: GE-WMC Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2005-1

Cl. A-2c, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 15, 2013
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jan 3, 2014 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-HE2

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 4, 2013 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2014 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 4, 2013 Affirmed C
(sf)

Issuer: MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-WMC1

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2014 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2014
Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-1

Cl. I-A-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug 6, 2010
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. II-A-3, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Aug 6, 2010
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. II-A-4, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Aug 6, 2010
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
Series 2004-3

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2012
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2012
Downgraded to C (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions reflect recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools. The
upgrade actions 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 downgrades are a result of structural features
resulting in higher expected losses for the bonds than previously
anticipated.

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 5.8% in October 2014 from 7.2%
in October 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6% to 7% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House prices
are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expects
house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower increases than
Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions. Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly
dependent on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from
servicing transfers or other policy or regulatory change can
impact the performance of these transactions.


* Moody's Raises Ratings on $411MM RMBS Issued 2003 to 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 18 tranches
from seven subprime RMBS transactions backed by Subprime mortgage
loans.

Complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2004-FR1

Cl. A-6, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. A-7, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Mar 29, 2011
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2004-R11

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012 Upgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 29, 2011
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2004-R3

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012 Confirmed
at Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2004-R5

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Mar 29, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: Argent Securities Inc., Series 2004-W5

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2011
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: CIT Home Equity Loan Trust 2003-1

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on May 25, 2012
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2004-13

Cl. AF-4, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan 8, 2014 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. AF-5A, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 6, 2013
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

Cl. AF-5B, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 6, 2013
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 6, 2013
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account -- Unrated)

Cl. AF-6, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 6, 2013
Affirmed Ba1 (sf)

Cl. MF-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 6, 2013
Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

Cl. MV-3, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 6, 2013
Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. MV-4, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 6, 2013 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. MV-5, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 6, 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
upgrade actions 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 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 5.8% in October 2014 from 7.2%
in October 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6% to 7% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House prices
are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expects
house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower increases than
Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions. Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly
dependent on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from
servicing transfers or other policy or regulatory change can
impact the performance of these transactions.


* S&P Puts Ratings on 213 Tranches on 60 CLO Deals on CreditWatch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its ratings on 213
tranches from 60 U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
transactions on CreditWatch.

The tranches with ratings placed on CreditWatch Positive had an
original issuance of $13.63 billion.  These placements resulted
from enhanced overcollateralization after pay downs to the
tranches among these CLO transactions.

Of the 59 transactions with ratings placed on CreditWatch
positive, all have exited their reinvestment period.  Of these 211
tranches, 42 have started paying down.

S&P placed its ratings on Franklin CLO V Ltd.'s class D and E
notes on CreditWatch Negative because of exposure to long-dated
assets or securities that mature after the transaction's legal
final maturity date.  Based on the latest trustee report, the
transaction held 42.60% in long-dated securities.  This places the
junior tranches at potential market value risk relative to the
credit support available to them at their current rating level.
These ratings had an original issuance of $34.5 million.

The table below reflects the year of issuance for the 60
transactions whose ratings were placed on CreditWatch.

Issuance Per Year

  Year of issuance            Number of deals
    2006                            24
    2007                            32
    2008                             3
    2011                             1

S&P expects to resolve the CreditWatch placements within 90 days
after it completes a comprehensive cash flow analysis and
committee review for each of the affected transactions.  S&P will
continue to monitor the collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
transactions it rates and take rating actions, including
CreditWatch placements, as S&P deems appropriate.

RATINGS PLACED ON CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

1776 CLO I Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
D                   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)
E                   B+ (sf)/Watch Pos     B+ (sf)

Aberdeen Loan Funding Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)

ACA CLO 2006-2 Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
D                   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB- (sf)

ACA CLO 2007-1 Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
B                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)

Apidos CDO IV
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)
D                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
E                   BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

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

Avenue CLO III Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A3L                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B1L                 A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
B2L                 BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)

Battalion CLO 2007-1 Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
D                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
E                   BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

Blackrock Senior Income Series IV
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)

BlueMountain CLO III Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
D                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)

Brentwood CLO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-2                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)

Callidus Debt Partners CLO Fund VI Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1D                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-1T                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)
B                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
C                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
D                   BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

Carlyle Arnage CLO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-3L                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B-1L                BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)

Carlyle High Yield Partners IX Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
D                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)

Cent CDO 12 Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
D                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
E                   BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

Churchill Financial Cayman Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
D-1                 BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
D-2                 BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
E                   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB- (sf)

CIFC Funding 2006-IB Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-3L                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B-1L                AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)

CIFC Funding 2007-II Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1-J               AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A2                  AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
B                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
C                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
D                   BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

ColumbusNova CLO IV Ltd. 2007-II
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
C                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
D                   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)

ColumbusNova CLO Ltd. 2006-II
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
C                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
D                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
E                   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB- (sf)

Cornerstone CLO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1-J               AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-1-S               AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)

Emporia Preferred Funding II Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
C                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
D                   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)

Emporia Preferred Funding III Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   A- (sf)/Watch Pos     A- (sf)
D                   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB- (sf)

Flagship CLO VI
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1b                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)
C                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)

Gillespie CLO PLC
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-3                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
D                   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)
E                   B- (sf)/Watch Pos     B- (sf)

Golub International Loan Ltd. I
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)

Grayson CDO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1a                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-1b                AA (sf)/Watch Pos    AA (sf)

Hillmark Funding Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
B                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
C                   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)

Hudson Canyon Funding II Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)

ING IM CLO 2011-1 Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-2                 AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
B                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
C                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
D                   BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

Katonah 2007-I CLO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1L                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2L                AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
A-3L                A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
B-1L                BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
B-2L                BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)

Kingsland IV Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-1R                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A- (sf)/Watch Pos     A- (sf)
D                   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB- (sf)

Kingsland V Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2B                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A- (sf)/Watch Pos     A- (sf)
D-1                 BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)
D-2                 BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)

Landmark IX CDO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
D                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)

Landmark VI CDO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
C                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
D                   A- (sf)/Watch Pos     A- (sf)
E                   BB- (sf)/Watch Pos    BB- (sf)

Limerock CLO I
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-3a                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-3b                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-4                 AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)
B                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
C                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
D                   BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

Mayport CLO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-3L                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)

Momentum Capital Fund Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
D                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
E                   B+ (sf)/Watch Pos     B+ (sf)

Mountain View CLO III Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-2                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)

Muir Grove CLO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
D                   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB- (sf)
E                   B+ (sf)/Watch Pos     B+ (sf)

Nantucket CLO I Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)

Navigator CDO 2006 Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B-1                 AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)
B-2                 AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)

Northwoods Capital VI Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)

Northwoods Capital VIII Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
D                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
E                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)

Pangaea CLO 2007-1 Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)

Phoenix  CLO II Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
C-1                 BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
C-2                 BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)

Primus CLO II Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
D                   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)
E                   CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos   CCC+ (sf)

Prospect Park CDO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)

Rampart CLO 2006-I Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
B                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
D                   B+ (sf)/Watch Pos     B+ (sf)

Regatta Funding Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-3L                AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
B-1L                A- (sf)/Watch Pos     A- (sf)
B-2L                BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)

Rockwall CDO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1LB               AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2L                A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
A-3L                A- (sf)/Watch Pos     A- (sf)
A-4L                BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
B-1L                BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)

Saturn CLO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-1J                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
B                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)

Shasta CLO I Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-2L                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-3L                A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
B-1L                BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
B-2L                BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

St. James River CLO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-R                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-T                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
C                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
D                   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB- (sf)

Symphony CLO IV Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A                   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)

Venture VI CDO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-1-J               AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)

Venture VIII CDO Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1A                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-1B                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2A                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2B                AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-3                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
C                   BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)
D                   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)
E                   BB- (sf)/Watch Pos    BB- (sf)

Voya CLO III Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-3                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
B                   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     A+ (sf)
C                   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
D                   B+ (sf)/Watch Pos     B+ (sf)

Westwood CDO I Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
A-1                 AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)
A-2                 AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
B                   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)

RATINGS PLACED ON CREDITWATCH NEGATIVE

Franklin CLO V Ltd.
                    Rating                Rating
Class               To                    From
D                   BB+ (sf)/Watch Neg    BB+ (sf)
E                   B- (sf)/Watch Neg     B- (sf)


                             *********

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 ***