TCR_Public/161016.mbx          T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

              Sunday, October 16, 2016, Vol. 20, No. 289

                            Headlines

APIDOS CLO XV: S&P Affirms B Rating on Class E Notes
ATRIUM VIII: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
BEAR STEARNS 2006-PWR14: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs
BEAR STEARNS 2008-R2: Moody's Hikes Cl. 2-A-1 Debt Rating to Caa2
CANYON CAPITAL 2012-1: S&P Gives Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E-R Debt

CEDAR FUNDING VI: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
CHL MORTGAGE 2004-HYB8: Moody's Hikes Cl. I-X Debt Rating to Ba2
CITIGROUP 2014-GC25: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Cl. E Debt
COMM 2016-667M: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E Certs.
CONN'S RECEIVABLES 2016-B: Fitch Rates Class C Notes 'Bsf'

COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE: Moody's Takes Action on $171MM 2nd Lien RMBS
CPS AUTO 2016-D: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Class E Notes
CWABS 2004-10: Moody's Hikes Class MF-1 Debt Rating to'B2'
CWALT INC 2004-30CB: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. 1-A-3 Debt to B1
DT AUTO 2016-4: DBRS Finalizes BB Rating on Class E Notes

DT AUTO OWNER 2016-4: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class E Notes
EATON VANCE VIII: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class D Notes
EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2016-3: DBRS Finalized BB Rating on Cl. D Notes
EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2016-3: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. D Notes
GARRISON FUNDING 2016-1: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Cl. D Notes

GE COMMERCIAL 2004-C2: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on Class M Certs
GLENEAGLES CLO: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class D Notes
GREAT LAKES 2012-1: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
GS MORTGAGE 2014-GC20: Fitch Affirms BB- Rating on 2 Tranches
GSCCRE COMMERCIAL 2015-HULA: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Cl. E Debt

HARBOR SERIES 2006-2: Moody's Lowers Rating on Cl. B Notes to C
INSTITUTIONAL MORTGAGE 2016-7: DBRS Gives Prov BB Rating to F Notes
INSTITUTIONAL MORTGAGE 2016-7: Fitch to Rate Class G Notes Bsf
JFIN MM 2014: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
JP MORGAN 2006-LDP7: Fitch Lowers Rating on Cl. C Certs to 'Csf'

JP MORGAN 2013-C17: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs.
JP MORGAN 2016-WIKI: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
LIGHTPOINT CLO VII: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class D Notes
MERRILL LYNCH 2005-LC1: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Cl. F Certs
MORGAN STANLEY 2004-HQ4: Fitch Withdraws Dsf Rating on 7 Tranches

MOUNTAIN VIEW II: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
NATIONSTAR HECM: Moody's Puts Ba2 Rating on M2 Debt on Review
NRZ ADVANCE 2015-ON1: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on 2 Tranches
ONE LIBERTY: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class C Notes
OZLM FUNDING II: S&P Gives Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. D-R Notes

PUTNAM STRUCTURED 2001-1: Moody's Raises Rating on C-1 Debt to B3
PUTNAM STRUCTURED 2003-1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on A-2 Debt
RAIT PREFERRED II: S&P Raises Rating on Class A-2 Notes to BB+
RED RIVER: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Class E Notes
SEQUOIA MORTGAGE 2016-3: Moody Rates Class B-3 Notes 'Ba1'

SHACKLETON 2016-IX: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
VOYA CLO V: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class D Notes
WALDORF ASTORIA 2016-BOCA: Fitch to Rate Class E Certs 'BB-sf'
WESTLAKE AUTOMOBILE 2016-3: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on E Notes
WFRBS COMMERCIAL 2013-C18: Fitch Affirms B Rating on Cl. F Certs.

[*] Moody's Hikes $49.7MM RMBS Issued 2002-2007
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $197.2MM of Subprime RMBS
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $52MM of RMBS Loans Issued in 2004
[*] S&P Lowers Ratings on 88 Classes From 52 RMBS Transactions to D
[*] S&P Retains 8 Ratings From 8 Transactions on CreditWatch Dev.

[*] S&P Takes Rating Actions on 59 Class From 45 RMBS Deals

                            *********

APIDOS CLO XV: S&P Affirms B Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class A-2A, A-2B,
B-1, and B-2 notes and affirmed its ratings on the class A-1, C, D,
and E notes from Apidos CLO XV, a U.S. collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) transaction that closed in October 2013 and is
managed by CVC Credit Partners.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance, using data from the August 2016 trustee report.  The
transaction is scheduled to remain in its reinvestment period until
October 2017.

The upgrades primarily reflect credit quality improvement in the
underlying collateral since S&P's effective date rating
affirmations in April 2014.

Collateral with an S&P Global Ratings' credit rating of 'BB-' or
higher has increased significantly from the January 2014 effective
date report used for S&P's previous review.  Although the reported
weighted average spread has decreased to 3.79% from 4.52% at the
effective date, there has been a corresponding increase in the
weighted average S&P Global Ratings' recovery rate.

The transaction has also benefited from collateral seasoning, with
the reported weighted average life decreasing to 4.50 years from
5.33 years in January 2014.  This seasoning, combined with the
improved credit quality, has decreased the overall credit risk
profile, which, in turn, provided more cushion to the tranche
ratings.  In addition, the number of issuers in the portfolio has
increased during this period, and this resulting portfolio
diversification has contributed to the credit quality improvement.

Although there has been a modest increase in both defaulted assets
and assets rated in the 'CCC' category, these factors are offset by
the decline in the weighted average life and positive credit
migration of the collateral portfolio, both of which have lowered
the credit risk profile.

According to the August 2016 trustee report that S&P used for this
review, the overcollateralization (O/C) ratios for each class have
exhibited mild declines since S&P's April 2014 rating
affirmations.

   -- The class A O/C ratio was 133.34%, down from 134.48%.
   -- The class B O/C ratio was 121.88%, down from 122.92%.
   -- The class C O/C ratio was 114.03%, down from 115.01%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio was 108.31%, down from 109.23%.

However, the current coverage test ratios are all passing and well
above their minimum threshold values.

Although S&P's cash flow analysis indicated higher ratings for the
class B-1, B-2, C, and D notes, its rating actions consider
additional sensitivity runs that considered the exposure to
specific distressed industries and allowed for volatility in the
underlying portfolio given that the transaction is still in its
reinvestment period.

The affirmations of the ratings on the class A-1, C, D, and E notes
reflect S&P's belief that the credit support available is
commensurate with the current rating levels.

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 these rating
actions.

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

RATINGS RAISED

Apidos CLO XV
                  Rating
Class         To          From
A-2A          AA+ (sf)    AA (sf)
A-2B          AA+ (sf)    AA (sf)
B-1           A+ (sf)     A (sf)
B-2           A+ (sf)     A (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Apidos CLO XV
                
Class         Rating
A-1           AAA (sf)
C             BBB (sf)
D             BB (sf)
E             B (sf)


ATRIUM VIII: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Atrium
VIII/Atrium VIII LLC's $460.00 million floating-rate replacement
notes.  The replacement notes will be issued via a proposed
supplemental indenture.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's opinion that the credit
support available is commensurate with the associated rating
levels.

On the Oct. 24, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to be used to redeem
the original notes.  At that time, S&P anticipates withdrawing the
ratings on the original notes and assigning final ratings to the
replacement notes.  However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, it
may affirm the ratings on the original notes and withdraw our
preliminary ratings on the replacement notes.

The replacement notes are being issued via a proposed supplemental
indenture, which, in addition to outlining the terms of these
replacement notes, will also:

   -- Extend the reinvestment period to Oct. 23, 2018;
   -- Extend the transaction's legal final maturity date to
      Oct. 23, 2024;
   -- Extend the weighted average life test to 6.00 years;
   -- Include changes around Volcker provisions.
   -- Include revisions to the investment criteria.
   -- Increase the covenant-lite concentration limit to 60% from
      40%.
   -- Allow for the reclassification of $2.5 million of principal
      proceeds as interest proceeds.
   -- Adopt the non-model version of the CDO Monitor application.
   -- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated
      industry classifications as outlined in our August 2016
      collateralized loan obligation criteria update.

             REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

Replacement notes
Class                Amount    Interest
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)
A-R                  158.00    LIBOR + 1.35
A loan(i)            160.00    LIBOR + 1.35
A-L(i)                 0.00    LIBOR + 1.35
B-R                   53.00    LIBOR + 1.90   
C-R                   42.00    LIBOR + 2.50   
D-R                   26.00    LIBOR + 4.00
E-R                   21.00    LIBOR + 7.25   
Subordinated notes    56.30

Original notes
Class                Amount    Interest         
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)          
A-1                  298.00    LIBOR + 1.47   
A-2                   20.00    2.50   
B                     53.00    LIBOR + 2.50   
C                     42.00    LIBOR + 3.25   
D                     26.00    LIBOR + 4.50   
E                     21.00    LIBOR + 6.00   
Subordinated notes    56.30

(i)The class A-L notes have a rated principal amount of
$160 million, which includes the $160 million rated principal
amount of class A loans.  The aggregate outstanding amount of class
A loans can be converted to class A-L notes, at which point the
corresponding amount of converted class A loans will be canceled.

S&P's review of the transaction relied, in part, upon a criteria
interpretation with respect to its May 2014 criteria, "CDOs:
Mapping A Third Party's Internal Credit Scoring System To Standard
& Poor's Global Rating Scale," which allows S&P to use a limited
number of public ratings from other Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) to assess the credit
quality of assets not rated by S&P Global Ratings.  The criteria
provide specific guidance for the treatment of corporate assets not
rated by S&P Global Ratings, while the interpretation outlines the
treatment of securitized assets.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as presented to S&P in
connection with this review, 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 or
ultimate principal, or both, 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 preliminary rating levels associated
with these rating actions.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Atrium VIII/Atrium VIII LLC

Class                 Rating              Amount
                                        (mil. $)
A-R                   AAA (sf)            158.00
A loans(i)            AAA (sf)            160.00
A-L(i)                AAA (sf)              0.00
B-R                   AA (sf)              53.00
C-R                   A (sf)               42.00
D-R                   BBB (sf)             26.00
E-R                   BB (sf)              21.00
Subordinated notes    NR                   56.30

(i)The class A-L notes have a rated principal amount of
$160 million, which includes the $160 million rated principal
amount of class A loans.  The aggregate outstanding amount of class
A loans can be converted to class A-L notes, at which point the
corresponding amount of converted class A loans will be canceled.
NR--Not rated.


BEAR STEARNS 2006-PWR14: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of Bear Stearns Commercial
Mortgage Securities Trust series 2006-PWR14 commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates.

                          KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are the result of sufficient credit enhancement
relative to expected losses and overall stable performance of the
underlying collateral since Fitch's last rating action.  Loans
representing 87% of the remaining pool are scheduled to mature in
2016, including five ARD loans (10.8%) and six defeased loans
(6.8%).  In addition, two loans (9.1%) will mature at the end of
2017.  The majority of these loans are expected to pay off at
maturity; however, Fitch's stressed analysis indicates some of the
more highly leveraged loans may have trouble refinancing and could
default.  Fitch has applied additional stresses in its base case
analysis to factor in the refinancing risks.

Fitch modeled losses of 13.8% for the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 11.1%, including $132.5
million (5.4% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date.  Fitch has designated 34 loans (42.3%) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes seven specially serviced assets (6.9%).

As of the September 2016 remittance report, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 58.1% to $1.03 billion from
$2.47 billion at issuance. Interest shortfalls are affecting
classes E through P, with the exception of classes J and K.  Nine
loans (9%) are defeased, including the fourth (4.7%) largest loan
in the pool.

The largest contributor to Fitch's modeled losses is an interest
only loan (IO) (8.9%) secured by a 418,026 sf office building
located in the Newark, NJ central business district.  In October
2013, the loan was modified into an A/B note structure and the term
of the loan was extended 72 months to December 2017.  Based on the
March 2016 rent roll, the collateral was 96% occupied, in line with
year-end (YE) 2015 and an improvement from 90% at YE2014.  The
collateral was 98% occupied at issuance.  Leases representing 18%
of the net rentable area (NRA) roll in 2017.  The servicer reported
first-quarter (1Q) 2016 DSCR for the A note is 1.53x, compared to
1.71x at YE 2015 and 1.62x at YE2014.  According to Reis, as of 2nd
quarter 2016, the Newark class 'A' office submarket had a vacancy
rate of 17.5% with an average asking rent of $31 psf, which is in
line with the current in-place rent of the subject property.

The second largest contributor to losses consists of two crossed
loans (3%)in special servicing.  The City Center West loan is
secured by a 106,617 SF Class B office building located in
Northwest Las Vegas, NV.  The Molina Building loan is secured by a
124,671 sf office building located in northern Albuquerque, NM. The
loans were transferred to special servicing in October 2015 for
imminent default.  Both properties suffered from declining cash
flows due to the losses of major tenants.  Loan modification
discussions were not successful and the servicer is moving forward
with foreclosure.  As of April 2016, City Center West was 51.6%
occupied.  The Molina Building is currently 67% occupied.  Recent
property appraisals indicate significant declines in values
relative to the outstanding loan amounts.

The third largest contributor to losses is Fountain Square,an IO
loan (3.8%) secured by a 165,872 sf retail center located in
Brookfield, WI.  The loan had an anticipated repayment date (ARD)
of Oct. 1, 2016.  Going forward, debt service coverage is expected
to decline as the interest rate increases according to terms of the
ARD.  The final loan maturity is October 2036.  The property has
been 100% occupied since 2010 when two major tenants signed long
term leases.  The servicer reported YE2015 DSCR was 1.11x, compared
to 1.08x at YE2014 and YE2013.

                     RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlooks on classes A-4 and A-1A reflect sufficient
credit enhancement (CE) and expected continued paydown.  Fitch
maintains the Negative Outlook on the class A-M notes due to
uncertainty in the refinancing prospects of loans in the pool with
Fitch loan-to-value ratios at or near 100%.  Should higher
leveraged loans refinance without issue, the negative outlooks on
class A-M could be revised to stable.  The distressed classes
(those rated below 'Bsf') may be subject to further downgrades as
additional losses are realized.

Fitch has affirmed these classes:

   -- $327.7 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $98.4 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $246.8 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $222.1 million class A-J at 'CCCsf; RE 95%';
   -- $46.3 million class B at 'CCCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $24.7 million class C at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $37 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%.
   -- $21.6 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%
   -- $9.4 million class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%

Fitch does not rate class P. Class A-1, A-2, A3 and A-AB have paid
in full.  Class G, H, J, K, L, M, N, and O are affirmed at 'Dsf; RE
0%' due to losses incurred.  Fitch has previously withdrawn the
ratings on the interest-only classes X-1, X-2 and X-W.


BEAR STEARNS 2008-R2: Moody's Hikes Cl. 2-A-1 Debt Rating to Caa2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating of one tranche
and confirmed ratings of two tranches from two re-securitization
transactions.  The re-securitizations are backed by various Alt-A
residential mortgage-backed securities which underlying pools
include mortgages issued by Countrywide Mortgage (CW).

The tranches that were placed on review for upgrade on July 22,
2016, are due to the distribution of funds from the $8.5 billion
settlement related to CW's pre-crisis servicing practices and
alleged breaches of representations and warranties, between Bank of
America, N.A., parent of CW, and Bank of New York Mellon as
trustee, to underlying bonds backing the two re-securitizations.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Bear Stearns Structured Products Inc. Trust Notes, Series
2008-R2

  Cl. 2-A-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: Deutsche ALT-A Securities, Inc. Re-Remic Trust
Certificates, Series 2007-RS1

  Cl. A-1, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. A-3, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

                       RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions consider the recent performance of the
underlying bonds and reflect Moody's updated loss on the
re-securitized bonds together with changes in tranche level credit
enhancement.

The rating upgrade primarily reflects the increase in credit
enhancement related to recoveries on one subordinated bond
following the receipt of CW settlement in the underlying
transaction backing Bear Stearns Structured Products Inc. Trust
Notes, Series 2008-R2 group II notes.

The rating confirmations primarily reflect losses incurred and
outstanding on the bonds after settlement recoveries, Moody's
updated loss expectation on the bonds, and bond specific credit
enhancement in the transaction.

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Resecuritizations" published in February 2014, and "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

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

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 5.0% in September 2016 from 5.1% in
September 2015.  Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 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 2016.  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 on the underlying transactions or other policy or
regulatory change can impact the performance of these transactions.


CANYON CAPITAL 2012-1: S&P Gives Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E-R Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Canyon
Capital CLO 2012-1 Ltd./Canyon Capital CLO 2012-1 LLC's $302.50
million floating-rate replacement notes.  The replacement notes
will be issued via a proposed supplemental indenture.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's opinion that the credit
support available is commensurate with the associated rating
levels.

On the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to be used to redeem
the original notes.  At that time, S&P anticipates withdrawing the
ratings on the original notes and assigning final ratings to the
replacement notes.  However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, S&P
may affirm the ratings on the original notes and withdraw its
preliminary ratings on the replacement notes.

The replacement notes are being issued via a proposed supplemental
indenture, which, in addition to outlining the terms of the
replacement notes, will also:

   -- Extend the reinvestment period to Jan. 15, 2019;
   -- Extend the transaction's legal final maturity date to
      Jan. 15, 2026;
   -- Extend the weighted average life test to 6.75 years;
   -- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated
      industry classifications as outlined in S&P's August 2016
      collateralized loan obligation criteria update.

REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

Replacement notes
Class                Amount    Interest
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)
A-R                  213.75    LIBOR + 1.43   
B-R                  36.25     LIBOR + 1.90   
C-R                  24.00     LIBOR + 2.50   
D-R                  14.50     LIBOR + 4.10
E-R                  14.00     LIBOR + 7.50   
Subordinated notes   37.50

Original notes
Class                Amount    Interest
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)
A                    200.00    LIBOR + 1.45   
B-1                   41.00    LIBOR + 1.95   
B-2                    7.50    3.16   
C                     24.00    LIBOR + 2.80   
D                     14.50    LIBOR + 4.30   
E                     14.00    LIBOR + 5.95   
Subordinated notes    37.500

S&P's review of the transaction relied, in part, upon a criteria
interpretation with respect to our May 2014 criteria, "CDOs:
Mapping A Third Party's Internal Credit Scoring System To Standard
& Poor's Global Rating Scale," which allows S&P to use a limited
number of public ratings from other Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) to assess the credit
quality of assets not rated by S&P Global Ratings.  The criteria
provide specific guidance for the treatment of corporate assets not
rated by S&P Global Ratings, while the interpretation outlines the
treatment of securitized assets.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as presented to S&P in
connection with this review, 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 or
ultimate principal, or both, 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 preliminary rating levels associated
with these rating actions.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Canyon Capital CLO 2012-1 Ltd./Canyon Capital CLO 2012-1 LLC

Class                 Rating              Amount
                                        (mil. $)
A-R                   AAA (sf)            213.75
B-R                   AA (sf)              36.25
C-R                   A (sf)               24.00
D-R                   BBB (sf)             14.50
E-R                   BB (sf)              14.00
Subordinated notes    NR                   37.50

NR--Not rated.


CEDAR FUNDING VI: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to
$460.625 million of the $498.475 million fixed- and floating-rate
notes to be issued by Cedar Funding VI CLO Ltd./Cedar Funding VI
CLO LLC.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 11,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

   -- The diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily of

      broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term
      loans (i.e., those rated 'BB+' or lower) that are governed
      by collateral quality tests.  The credit enhancement
      provided through the subordination of cash flows, excess
      spread, and overcollateralization.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced team, which can affect
      the performance of the rated notes through collateral
      selection, ongoing portfolio management, and trading.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Cedar Funding VI CLO Ltd./Cedar Funding VI CLO LLC

                      Preliminary       Preliminary
Class                 rating        amount (mil. $)

A-1                   AAA (sf)               297.50
A-F                   AAA (sf)                20.00
B                     AA (sf)                 66.25
C-1 (deferrable)      A (sf)                   7.37
C-F (deferrable)      A (sf)                  23.88
D-1 (deferrable)      BBB (sf)                19.25
D-2 (deferrable)      BBB- (sf)                7.00
E (deferrable)        BB- (sf)                19.38
Sub nts (deferrable)  NR                      37.85

NR--Not rated.


CHL MORTGAGE 2004-HYB8: Moody's Hikes Cl. I-X Debt Rating to Ba2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 13 tranches
and confirmed the rating of one tranche from three transactions,
backed by Alt-A and Option ARM RMBS loans, issued by Countrywide
Mortgage (CW).  The tranches that were placed on review for upgrade
on July 22nd, 2016, are due to the distribution of funds related to
the $8.5 billion settlement related to CW's pre-crisis servicing
practices and alleged breaches of representations and warranties,
between Bank of America, N.A., parent of CW, and Bank of New York
Mellon as trustee.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-HYB8

Cl. I-X, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B2 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

  Cl. II-M, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on March 3, 2011,
   Downgraded to C (sf)
  Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 4-A-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 5-A-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 6-A-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 7-A-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 8-A-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 9-A-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016,
   B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2005-54CB

  Cl. 1-A-7, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Sept. 27, 2016,
   Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2006-OA6

  Cl. 1A-1A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1A-2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions consider the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectation on
these pools together with changes in tranche level credit
enhancement.  They also reflect the correction of prior errors.

The rating upgrades for CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-HYB8
and CWALT, Inc.  Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2006-OA6 primarily reflect the receipt of CW settlement funds in
these transactions.  The rating upgrades incorporate the positive
effect of recoveries and the reduction of expected loss on the
affected bonds as well as any increases in credit enhancement
related to recoveries or otherwise on subordinated bonds.  These
rating actions also reflect corrections to the cash-flow models
used by Moody's in rating these transactions.  In the prior
modeling of CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-HYB8, the
percentage of senior prepayments due to all outstanding senior
bonds was calculated incorrectly, resulting in more principal
payments to Classes 1-A-1 and 2-A-1 and less principal payments to
the remaining senior classes than called for in the transaction
documents.  In the prior modeling of CWALT, Inc. Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-OA6, the transaction's
stepdown date and cumulative loss trigger threshold were
incorrectly calculated, resulting in less principal payments to
Class 2-A than called for in the transaction documents.  These
errors have now been corrected, and today's rating actions reflect
these changes.

The rating upgrade on Class 1-A-7 from CWALT, Inc. Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-54CB reflects the correction
of a prior error.  In the 27 September 2016 rating action, Class
1-A-7 was erroneously downgraded to Caa3, which did not reflect the
super senior support available to this class from Class 1-A-8. This
error has now been corrected, and today's rating action reflects
this change.

These actions conclude the review of the bonds previously placed on
review for upgrade.

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 ratings:

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 4.9% in August 2016 from 5.1% in
August 2015.  Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 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 2016.  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.


CITIGROUP 2014-GC25: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Cl. E Debt
----------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited confirmed the ratings on the Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC25 (the Certificates)
issued by Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-GC25 as follows:


   -- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-3 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-4 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-AB at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-A at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-B at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-D at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-E at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-F at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-G at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-S at AAA (sf)

   -- Class B at AA (sf)

   -- Class PEZ at A (low) (sf)

   -- Class C at A (low) (sf)

   -- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)

   -- Class E at BB (sf)

   -- Class F at B (sf)

All trends are Stable. DBRS does not rate the first loss piece,
Class G. The Class PEZ certificates are exchangeable with the Class
A-S, Class B and Class C certificates (and vice versa).

The rating confirmations reflect that the transaction's current
performance remains in line with expectations since issuance in
October 2014. The collateral consists of 62-fixed rate loans
secured by 99 commercial properties. As of the September 2016
remittance, all 62 loans remain in the pool with an aggregate
outstanding principle balance of approximately $834.3 million,
representing a collateral reduction of 0.9% since issuance because
of scheduled loan amortization. Sixty-one loans (97.8% of the pool)
have reported YE2015 net cash flows (NCFs). According to YE2015
financials, the transaction had a weighted-average (WA) debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR) and WA debt yield of 1.63 times (x)
and 9.3%, respectively, compared with the DBRS underwritten (UW)
figures of 1.42x and 8.3%, respectively.

The pool is concentrated by loan size as the Top 10 and Top 15
loans represent 59.9% and 71.2% of the pool, respectively.
Additionally, the largest loan, the Bank of America Plaza,
represents 13.2% of the pool. Based on the annualized 2016 cash
flows, the Top 15 loans had a WA amortizing DSCR of 1.83x compared
with the DBRS UW figure of 1.42x, reflective of a WA NCF growth of
26.9% compared with the DBRS UW figures.

As of the September 2016 remittance, there are no loans in special
servicing and four loans on the servicer's watchlist, representing
6.8% of the current pool balance. Two of the the loans (5.6% of the
pool) on the watchlist were flagged because the collateral
properties experienced significant hail damage. According to the
servicer, both properties' insurance policies were comprehensive
and renovations are ongoing. The remaining two loans (1.2% of the
pool) on the watchlist were flagged because of upcoming rollover
within the next six months. The larger of the two loans, the Pueblo
Shopping Center (Prospectus ID#6, 0.8% of the pool; part of the
larger Multi-State Retail Portfolio, representing 7.3% of the pool)
is secured by a 106,300 square foot (sf) grocery-anchored retail
plaza, located in Pueblo, Colorado. According to the borrower,
Dollar Tree (11.3% of the net rentable area (NRA)) has extended its
lease through January 2021 whereas King Soopers (47.9% of the NRA
with an October 2016 lease expiration) has an automatic renewal
option. DBRS has not received an updated sales report; however, as
of the trailing 12-month sales report ending in June 2014, King
Soopers reported sales of $666.00 per square foot (psf) and,
according to the servicer, the tenant has had an 8.5% gross sales
increase over the previous year. Additionally, the only direct
competitor, Safeway Supermarket, has left the market. Given the
positive sales trends and the lack of competition, King Soopers is
expected to remain at the property.

The largest loan, the Bank of America Plaza, is secured by a Class
A office building totaling 1.4 million sf located in downtown Los
Angeles, California. The 55-story building was originally
constructed in 1974 and contains nine underground parking levels.
The loan represents the non-controlling $110.0 million A-3-A note,
part of a $400.0 million whole-loan. According to the June 2016
rent roll, the property was 92.1% occupied, up from 89.5% at
issuance. As of Q2 2016, CoStar reported that 23 Class A office
buildings greater than 650,000 sf within the Greater Downtown
submarket were achieving average rental rates of $39.45 psf gross,
below the subject's in-place average rental rate of $40.52 psf
gross. The reported average vacancy and availability rates in the
submarket were 14.2% and 20.6%, respectively. The largest tenant,
Capital Group (22.6% of the NRA) has extended its original lease
from February 2018 through February 2033. Upon signing the lease
extension, the tenant's base rental rate increased to $27.00 psf
from $25.63 psf. The three next-largest tenants include Sheppard
Mullin (13.0% of e NRA), Bank of America (11.4% of the NRA) and
Kirkland & Ellis (7.1% of the NRA), which have lease expirations in
December 2024, June 2020 and December 2019, respectively. Together,
the largest four tenants occupy approximately 54.1% of the NRA with
no near-term rollover. Near-term rollover is minimal as only three
tenants, representing 3.3% of the NRA, have lease expirations
through YE2017. Alliant Insurance (1.3% of the NRA) and AT&T (0.7%
of the NRA) extended their respective leases through December 2020.
As of Q2 2016, the loan had an annualized DSCR of 2.58x, up from
2.26x at YE2015 and the DBRS UW figure of 1.76x. The loan is
sponsored by Brookfield Office Properties Inc., which operates a
portfolio of approximately 115 properties, totaling over 87 million
sf located primarily in downtown core markets in the United States,
Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.


COMM 2016-667M: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E Certs.
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to COMM
2016-667M Mortgage Trust's $214.0 million commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2016-667M.

The note issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by a $214.0 million trust mortgage loan, which
is part of a whole mortgage loan totaling $254.0 million, secured
by a first lien on the borrower's fee interest in 667 Madison
Avenue, a 25-story office building with a total of 273,983 sq. ft.,
located in Midtown Manhattan's Plaza District submarket.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 12,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect the collateral's historic and
projected performance, the sponsor's and managers' experience, the
trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's terms, and the transaction's
structure.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

COMM 2016-667M Mortgage Trust

Class     Rating(i)            Amount ($)
A         AAA (sf)            116,665,000
X-A       AAA (sf)            116,665,000(ii)
B         AA- (sf)             25,925,000
C         A- (sf)              24,770,000
D         BBB- (sf)            30,523,000(iii)
E         BB (sf)              16,117,000(iii)

(i)The rating on each class of securities is preliminary and
subject to change at any time.  The issuer will issue the
certificates to qualified institutional buyers in line with Rule
144A of the Securities Act of 1933.  
(ii)The notional amount of the class X-A certificates will be equal
to the class A certificate balance.  (iii)The initial certificate
balance of each of the class D and class E certificates is subject
to change based on final pricing of all certificates and the final
determination of the eligible horizontal residual interest that
will be retained by a third-party purchaser in order for German
American Capital Corp., the securitization sponsor, to satisfy its
U.S. risk retention requirements as if they were in effect with
respect to this securitization transaction.


CONN'S RECEIVABLES 2016-B: Fitch Rates Class C Notes 'Bsf'
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned these ratings to Conn's Receivables
Funding 2016-B, LLC (Conn's 2016-B), which consists of notes backed
by retail loans originated and serviced by Conn Appliances, Inc.:

   -- $391,840,000 class A notes at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $111,960,000 class B notes at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $48,980,000 class C notes at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- Class R notes at 'NRsf'.

                         KEY RATING DRIVERS

Collateral Quality: The 2016-B trust pool consists of 100%
fixed-rate consumer loans originated and serviced by Conn's
Appliances, Inc.  The pool exhibits a weighted average FICO score
of 608 and a weighted average borrower rate of 21.52%.

The base case default rate for the 2016-B pool is assumed to be
24.75% and Fitch applied a 2.2x stress at the 'BBBsf' level,
reflecting the high absolute value of the historical defaults,
along with the variability of default performance in recent years
and the high geographic concentration.

Rating Cap at 'BBBsf': Due to higher loan defaults in recent years,
management changes at Conn's, and the credit risk profile of
Conn's, Fitch placed a rating cap on this transaction at the
'BBBsf' category.

Dependence on Trust Triggers: The trust depends on the three trust
triggers - the cumulative net loss trigger, the annualized net loss
trigger, and the recovery trigger - in order to ensure the payments
due on the notes during times of degrading collateral performance.

Liquidity Support: Liquidity support is provided by reserve account
which will be fully funded at closing at 1.50% of the initial pool
balance.  The reserve account will step down to 1.25% of the
original collateral balance once overcollateralization (OC) reaches
30% of the current collateral balance and will step down to 1.00%
of the original collateral balance once OC reaches 40% of the
current collateral balance.

Servicing Capabilities: Conn Appliances, Inc. has a long track
record as an originator, underwriter, and servicer.  The credit
risk profile of the entity is mitigated by the backup servicing
provided by Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. (SST).

                        RATING SENSITIVITIES

Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults or chargeoffs
on customer accounts could produce loss levels higher than the base
case and would likely result in declines of credit enhancement (CE)
and remaining loss coverage levels available to the investments.
Decreased CE may make certain ratings on the investments
susceptible to potential negative rating actions, depending on the
extent of the decline in coverage.

Fitch conducts sensitivity analysis by stressing a transaction's
initial base case chargeoff assumption by 1.5x, 2.0x, and 2.5x, and
examining the rating implications.  The 1.5x, 2.0x, and 2.5x
increase of the base case chargeoffs are intended to provide an
indication of the rating sensitivity of the notes to unexpected
deterioration of a transaction's performance.

During the sensitivity analysis, Fitch examines the magnitude of
the multiplier compression by projecting the expected cash flows
and loss coverage levels over the life of investments under higher
than the initial base case chargeoff assumptions.  Fitch models
cash flows with the revised chargeoff estimates while holding
constant all other modeling assumptions.

Under the 1.5x base case stress scenario, class A notes would
retain the current rating, while class B notes would experience a
one-notch downgrade.  Under the 2.0x base case stress scenario,
class A notes would be downgraded one notch, while class B notes
would downgraded one category to 'Bsf'.  Under the 2.5x base case
stress scenario, class A notes would be downgraded to 'B+sf', and
class B and class C notes would fall to 'CCCsf'.


COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE: Moody's Takes Action on $171MM 2nd Lien RMBS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 7 tranches
and confirmed ratings of 10 tranches from six transactions, backed
by Second Lien mortgage loans, issued by Countrywide Mortgage
(CW).

The tranches that were placed on review for upgrade on July 22nd,
2016, are due to the distribution of funds from the $8.5 billion
settlement related to CW's pre-crisis servicing practices and
alleged breaches of representations and warranties, between Bank of
America, N.A., parent of CW, and Bank of New York Mellon as
trustee.

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-SPS1

   -- Cl. A, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-SPS2

   -- Cl. A, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-S1

   -- Cl. A-IO, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. A-3, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-3, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B3

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWHEQ 2007-G Class A Custody Receipts

   -- Cl. A, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2013
      Downgraded to A2 (sf)

Issuer: CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, 2007-G

   -- Cl. A, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 A3
      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-3, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-4, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-5, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-6, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B3
      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-7, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Oct 28, 2008
      Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-A

   -- Cl. A, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 Ca
      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions consider the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectation on
these pools together with changes in tranche level credit
enhancement.

The rating upgrades primarily reflect the receipt of CW settlement
in those transactions. The rating upgrades incorporate the positive
effect of recoveries and reduction of loss on the affected bonds as
well as any increases in credit enhancement related to recoveries
or otherwise, on subordinated bonds.

The rating confirmations primarily reflect shortfalls incurred and
outstanding on the bonds after settlement recoveries.

CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-S1 tranches were
confirmed as they did not incur any loss to date and hence did not
benefit from CW settlement payment. Their level of credit
enhancement remained unchanged following receipt of settlement
amount by the related covered trust.

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 ratings:

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 4.9% in August 2016 from 5.1% in
August 2015. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 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 2016. 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.


CPS AUTO 2016-D: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to CPS Auto
Receivables Trust 2016-D's $206.325 million asset-backed notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 6,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 55.53%, 48.19%, 38.56%,
      29.23%, and 23.76% of credit support for the class A, B, C,
      D, and E notes, respectively, based on stressed cash flow
      scenarios (including excess spread).  These credit support
      levels provide coverage of approximately 3.20x, 2.70x,
      2.10x, 1.60x, and 1.27x our 17.00-17.75% expected cumulative

      net loss range for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes,
      respectively.

   -- S&P's expectation that, under a moderate stress scenario of
      1.60x its expected net loss level, the preliminary ratings
      on the class A and B notes will not decline by more than one

      rating category during the first year, and the preliminary
      ratings on the class C, D, and E notes will not decline by
      more than two rating categories during the first year, all
      else being equal, which is consistent with S&P' credit
      stability criteria

   -- The preliminary rated notes' underlying credit enhancement
      in the form of subordination, overcollateralization, a
      reserve account, and excess spread for the class A, B, C, D,

      and E notes.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments made to the
      preliminary rated notes under S&P' stressed cash flow
      modeling scenarios, which S&P believes is appropriate for
      the assigned preliminary ratings.

   -- The transaction's payment and credit enhancement structure,
      which includes a noncurable performance trigger.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2016-D

Class   Rating     Type          Interest          Amount
                                 rate(i)         (mil. $)
A       AAA (sf)   Senior        Fixed            100.170
B       AA (sf)    Subordinate   Fixed             28.875
C       A (sf)     Subordinate   Fixed             32.655
D       BBB (sf)   Subordinate   Fixed             24.570
E       BB- (sf)   Subordinate   Fixed             20.055

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


CWABS 2004-10: Moody's Hikes Class MF-1 Debt Rating to'B2'
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 15 tranches,
confirmed the rating of 21 tranches, and assigned a rating to one
tranche from seven transactions issued by CWABS, backed by Subprime
mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2004-10

   -- Cl. AF-5A, Confirmed at A3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      A3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. AF-5B, Confirmed at A3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      A3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Underlying Rating: Confirmed at A3 (sf); previously on Jul
      22, 2016 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Financial Guarantor: MBIA Insurance Corporation (Downgraded
      to Caa1, Outlook changed to Negative on May 20, 2016)

   -- Cl. AF-6, Confirmed at A2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      A2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MF-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-2, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2004-12

   -- Cl. AF-5, Confirmed at A3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      A3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. AF-6, Confirmed at A2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      A2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MF-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-3, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B2

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-5, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Apr 16, 2012
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2004-14

   -- Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2004-15

   -- Cl. AF-5, Confirmed at Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. AF-6, Confirmed at A2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      A2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MF-1, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      B1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MF-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-3, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-4, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      B3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-5, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 16, 2012
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-2

   -- Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Aa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Aa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016   

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 16, 2012
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-3

   -- Cl. A, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Baa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Baa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A, Confirmed at A2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 A2

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-A-3, Confirmed at A1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      A1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-A-4, Confirmed at A1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      A1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 Ca

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   Issuer: CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-4

   -- Cl. A, Confirmed at Aa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 Aa3

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Aa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Aa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 B1

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. B, Assigned C (sf); previously on May 07, 2014 WR (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to receipt of funds from the
CWRMBS settlement and the related increase in total credit
enhancement available to the bonds. However, the rating upgrades
for CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-2 Class M-1
and Class M-2 are primarily due to the overall credit enhancement
available.

The rating confirmations on the adjustable rate senior tranches,
and the CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-3 Class
M-2 and CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-4 Class
M-2 are primarily due to their overall levels of credit
enhancement. The rating confirmations of the fixed rate senior
tranches and the other mezzanine tranches are primarily due to the
risk of future interest shortfalls.

The assignment of rating to the CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2004-4 Class B reflects the fact that the
prior rating had been withdrawn as the tranche was previously
written down due to losses, but the tranche has since been
partially written back up due to the settlement proceeds. The
assigned rating reflects its reinstated balance.

The rating actions conclude the review actions for these
transactions announced on July 22nd, and reflect the recent
performance of the underlying pools and Moody's updated loss
expectation on these pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

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

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 5.0% in September 2016 from 5.1% in
September 2015. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 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 2016. 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.



CWALT INC 2004-30CB: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. 1-A-3 Debt to B1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 21 tranches
and confirmed the ratings of 19 tranches from 6 transactions backed
by Alt-A RMBS loans issued by Countrywide Mortgage (CW). The
tranches that were placed on review for upgrade on July 22nd, 2016,
are due to the distribution of funds related to the
$8.5 billion settlement related to CW's pre-crisis servicing
practices and alleged breaches of representations and warranties,
between Bank of America, N.A., parent of CW, and Bank of New York
Mellon as trustee.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2004-30CB

  Cl. 1-A-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-6, Confirmed at Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-9, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-10, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-11, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-12, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-13, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-14, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-16, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-1, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-2, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 3-A-1, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. PO, Confirmed at Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2004-J4

  Cl. B, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on March 22, 2011,
   Downgraded to C (sf)
  Cl. M-1, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on March 22, 2011,
   Downgraded to C (sf)
  Cl. 1-A-5, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-6, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Baa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-7, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Baa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2004-J6

  Cl. PO, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016
   Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-1, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-X, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-1, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-X, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2005-16

  Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. A-5, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. X-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov. 23, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWMBS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2004-5CB

  Cl. PO, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 1-A-1, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-1, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 3-A-1, Confirmed at Ba3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWMBS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2004-6CB

  Cl. A, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   A1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on March 28, 2011,
   Downgraded to C (sf)
  Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on March 28, 2011,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions consider the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectation on
these pools together with changes in tranche level credit
enhancement.

The rating upgrades primarily reflect the receipt of CW settlement
in those transactions.  The rating upgrades incorporate the
positive effect of recoveries and reduction of loss on the affected
bonds as well as any increases in credit enhancement related to
recoveries or otherwise, on subordinated bonds.  The rating
confirmations primarily reflect losses incurred and outstanding on
the bonds after settlement recoveries, Moody's updated loss
expectation on the bonds and related pools, and bond specific
credit enhancement in the transactions.

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 ratings:

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 4.9% in August 2016 from 5.1% in
August 2015.  Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 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 2016.  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.


DT AUTO 2016-4: DBRS Finalizes BB Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. finalized its provisional ratings on the following
classes of notes issued by DT Auto Owner Trust 2016-4 (DTAOT
2016-4):

   -- $194,140,000 Class A at AAA (sf)

   -- $63,800,000 Class B at AA (sf)

   -- $76,030,000 Class C at A (sf)

   -- $66,520,000 Class D at BBB (sf)

   -- $38,020,000 Class E at BB (sf)

The ratings are based on DBRS’s review of the following
analytical considerations:

   -- Transaction capital structure, proposed ratings and form and
  
      sufficiency of available credit enhancement.

   -- DTAOT 2016-4 provides for Class A, B, C, D and E coverage
      multiples slightly below the DBRS range of multiples set
      forth in the criteria for this asset class. DBRS believes
      that this is warranted given the magnitude of expected loss
      and structural features of the transaction.

   -- The transaction parties’ capabilities with regard to
      originations, underwriting and servicing.

   -- The quality and consistency of provided historical static
      pool data for DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc. (DriveTime)
      originations and performance of the DriveTime auto loan
      portfolio.

   -- The November 19, 2014, settlement of the Consumer Financial
      Protection Bureau inquiry relating to allegedly unfair trade

      practices.

   -- Review of the legal structure and presence of legal opinions

      (to be provided), which address the true sale of the assets
      to the Issuer, the non-consolidation of the special-purpose
      vehicle with DriveTime, that the trust has a valid first-
      priority security interest in the assets and the consistency

      with the DBRS "Legal Criteria for U.S. Structured Finance"
      methodology.

The DTAOT 2016-4 transaction represents a securitization of a
portfolio of motor vehicle retail installment sales contracts
originated by DriveTime Car Sales Company, LLC (the Originator).
The Originator is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of DriveTime.
DriveTime is a leading used vehicle retailer in the United States
that focuses on the sale and financing of vehicles to the subprime
market.

The rating on the Class A Note reflects the 65.75% of initial hard
credit enhancement provided by the subordinated notes in the pool,
the Reserve Account (1.50%) and overcollateralization (19.25%). The
ratings on the Class B, C, D and E Notes reflect 54.00%, 40.00%,
27.75% and 20.75% of initial hard credit enhancement, respectively.
Additional credit support may be provided from excess spread
available in the structure.


DT AUTO OWNER 2016-4: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to DT Auto Owner Trust
2016-4's $438.51 million asset-backed notes series 2016-4.

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

The ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 66.8%, 60.7%, 51.0%,
      42.5%, and 38.4% credit support for the class A, B, C, D,
      and E notes, respectively, based on stressed break-even cash

      flow scenarios (including excess spread).  These credit
      support levels provide approximately 2.20x, 2.00x, 1.65x,
      1.35x, and 1.20x coverage of S&P' expected net loss range of

      29.50%-30.50% for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes,
      respectively.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments by the legal
      final maturity dates made under stressed cash flow modeling
      scenarios that S& deems appropriate for the assigned
      ratings.

   -- S&P' expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, the ratings on the class A, B, and C notes would
      remain within one rating category of our 'AAA (sf)',
      'AA (sf)', and 'A (sf)' ratings, respectively, and the
      rating on the class D and E notes would remain within two
      rating categories of S&P' 'BBB (sf)' and 'BB (sf)' ratings,
      respectively, during the first year.  These potential rating

      movements are consistent with S&P' credit stability
      criteria, which outline the outer bound of credit
      deterioration equal to a one-category downgrade within the
      first year for 'AAA' and 'AA' rated securities and a two-
      category downgrade within the first year for 'A' through
      'BB' rated securities under moderate stress conditions.

   -- The collateral characteristics of the subprime pool being
      securitized, including a high percentage (approximately 86%)

      of obligors with higher payment frequencies (more than once
      a month), which S&P expects will result in a somewhat faster

      paydown on the pool.

   -- The transaction's sequential-pay structure, which builds
      credit enhancement (on a percentage-of-receivables basis) as

      the pool amortizes.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

DT Auto Owner Trust 2016-4

Class   Rating          Type            Interest           Amount
                                        rate(%)           (mil. $)
A       AAA (sf)        Senior          1.44               194.14
B       AA (sf)         Subordinate     2.02                63.80
C       A (sf)          Subordinate     2.74                76.03
D       BBB (sf)        Subordinate     3.77                66.52
E       BB (sf)         Subordinate     6.49                38.02



EATON VANCE VIII: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class D Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on these notes
issued by Eaton Vance CDO VIII, Ltd.:

  $48,000,000 Class B Second Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes Due Aug. 15, 2022, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on
   Sept. 19, 2014, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

  $23,250,000 Class C Third Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes Due Aug. 15, 2022, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on
   Sept. 19, 2014, Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on these notes:

  $583,500,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
   Aug. 15, 2022, (current outstanding balance of
   $262,482,973.47), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sept. 19,
   2014, Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $33,750,000 Class D Fourth Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes Due Aug. 15, 2022, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on
   Sept. 19, 2014, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Eaton Vance CDO VIII, Ltd., issued in July 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of
senior secured loans.  The transaction's reinvestment period ended
in August 2013.

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization (OC) ratios since October 2015.  The Class A
notes have been paid down by approximately 27% or $97.5 million
since that time.  Based on Moody's calculation, the OC ratios for
the Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D notes are currently
154.08%, 130.26%, 121.19% and 110.06%, respectively, versus October
2015 levels of 140.54%, 124.01%, 117.32% and 108.81%,
respectively.

Nevertheless, the credit quality of the portfolio has deteriorated
since October 2015.  Based on the Moody's calculation, the weighted
average rating factor (WARF) is currently 2787 compared to 2476 in
October 2015.

These rating actions also reflect corrections to Moody's modeling.
In prior rating actions, the OC and Excess Interest Deflection
tests definition and use of interest proceeds captured upon failure
of Excess Interest Deflection Test after the reinvestment period
ends were modeled incorrectly.  The errors have now been corrected,
and today's rating actions reflect these changes.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
October 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

     of the collateral can have adverse consequences for CLO
     performance.

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

     current expectations will usually have a positive impact on
     CLO notes, beginning with those with the highest payment
     priority.

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

     than assumed recoveries would positively impact the CLO.

  6) Post-Reinvestment Period Trading: Subject to certain
     requirements, the deal can reinvest certain proceeds after
     the end of the reinvestment period.  Such reinvestment could
     affect the transaction either positively or negatively.

  7) Exposure to assets with low credit quality and weak
     liquidity: The presence of assets rated Caa3 with a negative
     outlook, Caa2 or Caa3 on review for downgrade or the worst
     Moody's speculative grade liquidity (SGL) rating, SGL-4,
     exposes the notes to additional risks if these assets
     default.  The historical default rate is higher than average
     for these assets.  Due to the deal's exposure to such assets,

     which constitute around $8.9 million of par, Moody's ran a
     sensitivity case defaulting those 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% (2230)
Class A: 0
Class B: 0
Class C: +3
Class D: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3344)
Class A: 0
Class B: -1
Class C: -2
Class D: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:
Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations".

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 $404.0 million, defaulted par
of $3.8 million, a weighted average default probability of 16.31%
(implying a WARF of 2787), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 50.8%, a diversity score of 52 and a weighted average
spread of 3.19%(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.


EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2016-3: DBRS Finalized BB Rating on Cl. D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. finalized its provisional ratings on the following
classes of notes issued by Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust
2016-3:

   -- Class A Notes rated AAA (sf)

   -- Class B Notes rated A (sf)

   -- Class C Notes rated BBB (sf)

   -- Class D Notes rated BB (sf)

The ratings are based on a review by DBRS of the following
analytical considerations:

   -- Transaction capital structure, proposed ratings and form and

      sufficiency of available credit enhancement. The transaction

      benefits from credit enhancement in the form of
      overcollateralization, subordination, amounts held in the
      reserve fund and excess spread. Credit enhancement levels
      are sufficient to support DBRS-projected expected cumulative

      net loss assumptions under various stress scenarios.

   -- The ability of the transaction to withstand stressed cash
      flow assumptions and repay investors according to the terms
      under which they have invested. For this transaction, the
      rating addresses the payment of timely interest on a monthly

      basis and principal by the legal final maturity date.

   -- Exeter’s capabilities with regards to originations,
      underwriting, servicing and ownership by the Blackstone
      Group, Navigation Capital Partners, Inc. and Goldman Sachs
      Vintage Fund.

   -- DBRS has performed an operational review of Exeter Finance
      Corp. (Exeter) and considers the entity to be an acceptable
      originator and servicer of subprime automobile loan
      contracts with an acceptable backup servicer.

   -- Exeter senior management team has considerable experience
      and a successful track record within the auto finance
      industry.

   -- The credit quality of the collateral and performance of
      Exeter’s auto loan portfolio.

   -- The legal structure and presence of legal opinions that
      address the true sale of the assets to the Issuer, the non-
      consolidation of the special-purpose vehicle with Exeter and

      that the trust has a valid first-priority security interest
      in the assets and the consistency with the DBRS methodology,

      “Legal Criteria for U.S. Structured Finance.”

Notes:

All figures are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

RATINGS

Issuer              Debt Rated          Rating Action      Rating
------              ----------          -------------      ------
Exeter Automobile   Class A Notes       Provis.-Final      AAA(sf)
Receivables Trust
2016-3

Exeter Automobile   Class B Notes       Provis.-Final      A(sf)
Receivables Trust
2016-3

Exeter Automobile   Class C Notes       Provis.-Final      BBB(sf)
Receivables Trust
2016-3

Exeter Automobile   Class D Notes       Provis.-Final      BB(sf)
Receivables Trust
2016-3



EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2016-3: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Exeter Automobile
Receivables Trust 2016-3's $450.00 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2016-3.

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

The ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 50.03%, 41.60%, 33.88%,
      and 26.08% credit support for the class A, B, C, and D
      notes, respectively, based on stressed cash flow scenarios
      (including excess spread), which provide coverage of more
      than 2.55x, 2.10x, 1.60x, and 1.30x our 18.50%-19.50%
      expected cumulative net loss.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments that S&P believes

      will be made to the rated notes by the assumed legal final
      maturity dates under stressed cash flow modeling scenarios
      that S&P believes are appropriate for the assigned ratings.

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

      will remain within two rating categories of S&P's 'BBB (sf)'

      and 'BB (sf)' ratings during the first year.  These
      potential rating movements are consistent with S&P's credit
      stability criteria, which outline the outer bound of credit
      deterioration as a one-category downgrade within the first
      year for 'AA' rated securities and a two-category downgrade
      within the first year for 'A' through 'BB' rated securities
      under the moderate stress conditions.

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

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

   -- Representation in the transaction documents that all
      contracts in the pool have made at least one payment.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2016-3

Class       Rating        Type            Interest   Amount
                                          Rate       (mil. $)
A           AA (sf)       Senior          Fixed      281.55
B           A (sf)        Subordinate     Fixed      69.50
C           BBB (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed      53.00
D           BB (sf)       Subordinate     Fixed



GARRISON FUNDING 2016-1: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Cl. D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by Garrison Funding 2016-1 Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

   -- US$254,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
      due 2028 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- US$4,000,000 Class X Amortizing Senior Secured Floating Rate

      Notes due 2028 (the "Class X Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- US$48,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
      due 2028 (the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

   -- US$24,000,000 Class B Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes

      due 2028 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

   -- US$22,000,000 Class C-1 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
      Notes due 2028 (the "Class C-1 Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

   -- US$2,000,000 Class C-2 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
      Notes due 2028 (the "Class C-2 Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

   -- US$18,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes

      due 2028 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

Garrison Funding 2016-1 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued
notes will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first
lien senior secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the
portfolio must consist of senior secured loans and eligible
investments, and up to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 55%
ramped as of the closing date.

Garrison Funding 2016-1 Manager LLC (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of
the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's four year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest
unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit
risk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer has issued subordinated
notes.

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in December 2015.

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

   -- Par amount: $400,000,000

   -- Diversity Score: 55

   -- Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2800

   -- Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.90%

   -- 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 prinicpal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
December 2015.

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 a component
in determining the ratings assigned to the Rated Notes. This
sensitivity analysis includes increased default probability
relative to the base case.

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2800 to 3220)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A-1 Notes: 0

   -- Class X Notes: 0

   -- Class A-2 Notes: -2

   -- Class B Notes: -2

   -- Class C-1 Notes: -1

   -- Class C-2 Notes: -1

   -- Class D Notes: -1

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

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A-1 Notes: -1

   -- Class X Notes: 0

   -- Class A-2 Notes: -3

   -- Class B Notes: -4

   -- Class C-1 Notes: -2

   -- Class C-2 Notes: -2

   -- Class D Notes: -1


GE COMMERCIAL 2004-C2: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on Class M Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed two classes of GE Commercial Mortgage
Corporation series 2004-C2 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

                         KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect sufficient credit enhancement relative to
expected losses.  In addition, class L and part of class M are
covered by defeasance.  Six loans remain in the pool, including two
specially serviced loans (22.4% of the pool); however, sale of the
largest specially serviced asset (13.2% of the pool) is expected
imminently.  The largest loan represents 72.5% of the pool and two
loans are defeased (5.1% of the pool).  All of the remaining
performing loans mature in 2019.

Fitch modeled losses of 28.7% of the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 0.8%, including
$1.7 million (0.1% of the original pool balance) in realized losses
to date.  As of the September 2016 distribution date, the pool's
aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 97.7% to $31.9
million from $1.4 billion at issuance.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting class P.

Continental Centre is the largest loan in the pool (72.5% - 54.8%
A-note, 17.7% B-note) and is secured by a 477,259 square foot (sf)
office building located in downtown Columbus, OH.  The loan had
previously transferred to special servicing in December 2012, for
imminent default.  Leading up to the transfer, the largest tenant
SBC/AT&T (currently 33.6% net rentable area [NRA], expiration
December 2017) had reduced their space which affected the overall
performance of the property.  Since then a loan modification closed
in March 2014 and the loan returned to the master servicer in
September 2014.  The terms of the loan modification included an A/B
note split: $17.5 million A-note and $5.6 million B-note, a
maturity extension to March 2019 and a temporary rate reduction.
Occupancy was 78% as of YE 2015 and 79% as of the June 2016 rent
roll.  Due in part to the loan modification, the DSCR has increased
substantially to 4.33x and 2.77x as of YE 2015 and YE 2014,
respectively, compared to 0.94x as of YE 2013.  There are two
major-tenant lease expirations (66% of rent roll) in 2017.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

The ratings of classes L and M are expected to remain stable.  An
upgrade to class M is not warranted at this time due to pool
concentration and quality of the remaining collateral.  Although
payoff to class M is likely, there is a possibility that the
Continental Centre loan will not payoff at maturity.  Class M may
be subject to downgrades should losses increase above
expectations.

Fitch has affirmed these classes as indicated:

   -- $985.7 thousand class L at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $5.2 million class M at 'BBsf', Outlook Stable.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-1A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K,
PPL-1, PPL-2, PPL-3, PPL-4, PPL-5 and PPL-6 certificates have paid
in full.  Fitch does not rate the class N, O and P certificates.
Fitch previously withdrew the rating on the interest-only class X-1
certificates and the interest-only class X-2 certificates have paid
in full.


GLENEAGLES CLO: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its rating on the class C notes from
Gleneagles CLO Ltd. and removed it from CreditWatch, where it was
placed with positive implications on July 14, 2016.  At the same
time, S&P affirmed its rating on the class D notes from the same
transaction.  Gleneagles CLO Ltd is a cash flow collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) that closed in October 2005 and is managed by
Highland Capital Management L.P.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the August 2016 trustee report.

The upgrade reflects the transaction's $249.21 million of
collective paydowns to the class A-1, A-2, B, and C notes since
S&P's July 2014 rating actions.  These paydowns resulted in
improved reported overcollateralization (O/C) ratios since the May
2014 trustee report, which S&P used for its previous rating
actions:

   -- The class C O/C ratio improved to 241.87% from 117.46%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio improved to 124.15% from 106.48%.

The collateral portfolio's credit quality has improved since S&P's
last rating actions.  Collateral obligations with ratings in the
'CCC' category have decreased, with $10.93 million reported as of
the August 2016 trustee report, compared with $22.38 million
reported as of the May 2014 trustee report, and the amount of
defaulted collateral held in the portfolio has decreased to
$47.16 million from $70.46 million.  Despite these decreases, the
concentrations of both 'CCC' and defaulted collateral as a
proportion of the portfolio have both increased, as assets are
amortizing out of the portfolio.  Despite these concentrations, the
transaction has benefited from a drop in the weighted average life
due to the underlying collateral's seasoning, with 1.21 years
reported as of the August 2016 trustee report compared with 2.65
years reported as of the May 2014 trustee report.

The transaction has significant exposure to long-dated assets
(assets maturing after the CLO's stated maturity).  According to
the August 2016, trustee report, the balance of collateral with a
maturity date after the transaction's stated maturity totaled
$19.36 million (17.02% of the portfolio).  S&P's analysis took into
account the potential market value risk and settlement-related risk
arising from the possible liquidation of the remaining securities
on the transaction's legal final maturity date.

The upgrade reflects the improved credit support at the prior
rating level and the affirmation reflects S&P's view that the
credit support available is commensurate with the current rating
level.

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

RATING RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

Gleneagles CLO Ltd.
                  Rating
Class         To          From
C             AAA (sf)    BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos

RATING AFFIRMED

Gleneagles CLO Ltd.
Class        Rating
D            B+ (sf)



GREAT LAKES 2012-1: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class B, C, and D
notes from Great Lakes CLO 2012-1 Ltd.  S&P also affirmed its
ratings on the class A and E notes from the same transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance, for which it used data from the Aug. 31, 2016 trustee
report.

The upgrades reflect the transaction's $8.83 million in paydowns to
the class A notes since the April 2016 trustee report, which S&P
used for its previous rating actions.  These paydowns resulted in
improved reported overcollateralization (O/C) ratios for all but
class E:

   -- The class A/B O/C ratio improved to 150.62% from 149.46%.
   -- The class C O/C ratio improved to 134.53% from 134.05%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio improved to 124.43% from 124.32%.
   -- The class E O/C ratio decreased to 112.08% from 112.34%.

Additionally, the transaction has benefited from an increase in
diversification and a rise in the weighted-average recovery rate of
the collateral portfolio.  These benefits to the transaction have
resulted in more cushion on all tranches.

Although S&P's cash flow analysis indicated a higher rating for the
class C notes than the level to which it upgraded it, S&P's rating
action considered the increase in defaults and additional
sensitivity runs that accounted for exposure to specific distressed
assets.

On a standalone basis, the results of the cash flow analysis
pointed to a lower rating on the class E notes than the rating
action suggests.  However, S&P believes that the O/C levels will
continue to increase as the transaction continues to amortize.  In
line with this, S&P affirmed the rating on the class E notes to
remain in line with its credit stability framework.

The affirmed ratings reflect S&P's belief that the credit support
available is commensurate with the current rating levels.

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.  In S&P's view,
the results of the cash flow analysis demonstrated that all of the
rated outstanding classes have adequate credit enhancement
available at the rating levels associated with the rating
actions.

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

RATINGS RAISED

Great Lakes CLO 2012-1 Ltd.

                  Rating
Class         To          From

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

RATINGS AFFIRMED
Great Lakes CLO 2012-1 Ltd.

Class         Rating

A             AAA (sf)
E             BB (sf)


GS MORTGAGE 2014-GC20: Fitch Affirms BB- Rating on 2 Tranches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 classes of GS Mortgage Securities
Trust Series 2014-GC20 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

                       KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are the result of the relatively stable pool
performance of the pool.  The Negative Outlooks on classes E and
X-C are due to continued concerns surrounding two loans (10.3%)
which are located in Houston's Energy Corridor, a market that
continues to be affected by low oil prices.  There have been no
delinquent or specially serviced loans since issuance; including
the Houston exposure, Fitch has designated seven Fitch Loans of
Concern (19.7%).

As of the September 2016 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 2.25% to $1.16 billion from
$1.18 billion at issuance.  Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting class H.

The largest Loan of Concern, Three WestLake Park (6.9% of the pool)
is secured by a 19-story office building located in Houston's
Energy Corridor.  At issuance, it was nearly fully occupied by two
tenants, ConocoPhillips (57.7% of the net rentable area [NRA]) and
BP Amoco (40.8% of the NRA).  BP has announced that it will not
renew its lease, which is scheduled to expire in November 2016.  A
majority of BP's space at the property is already dark.
Additionally, ConocoPhillips (recently downgraded by Fitch to
'A-'/Outlook Negative) maintains its headquarters less than two
miles from the subject.  The company recently laid off an estimated
500 employees in Houston and in February announced major cuts to
quarterly dividends and capex spending.  ConocoPhillips' lease
extends through February 2019 with no termination options. While
ConocoPhillips is expected to pay rent through its lease term,
increased submarket vacancy and the current state of the oil and
gas industry could make it challenging for the property manager to
attract replacement tenants.

The second largest Loan of Concern, Chase Tower (6.9%) is a
21-story office building located in the Austin, Texas CBD.
Occupancy declined to 90% as of March 2016 from 98% at YE2014 and
100% at issuance.  There is an additional lease roll of 23% in
2017, including the largest tenant, Bury & Partners, which occupies
18.4% of the NRA.

The third largest Loan of Concern, Sheraton Suites Houston (3.4%)
is secured by a full-service, 283-room hotel located in Houston,
TX.  The NOI for the 12 month period ending June 30, 2016 is below
the Trigger Level, therefore a Cash Management Period is now in
effect.  The NOI DSCR for the six months ended June, 30 2016
declined to 1.44x from 1.75x at year-end 2015.

                        RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks for the majority of the classes remain Stable.
Upgrades are not expected without improved performance and
increased credit enhancement.  The Negative Outlooks for the class
E and X-C certificates are a result of performance concerns for
some of the pool's largest loans.  Downgrades are possible should
the collateral level changes described above prove material to the
long-term stability of the pool.

Fitch affirms these classes and revises Outlooks as indicated:

   -- $36.2 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $41.5 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $176.8 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $185 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $272.4 million class A-5 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $88.9 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $72.4 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $78.3 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $0 class PEZ at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $50.2 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $59.1 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $29.6 million class E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $873.2 million* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $78.3 million* class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $29.6 million* class X-C at 'BB-sf'; Outlook to Negative
      from Stable.

*Notional amount and Interest-Only.

Fitch does not rate the class F, G, H and X-D certificates.


GSCCRE COMMERCIAL 2015-HULA: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Cl. E Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited confirmed all classes of Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates issued by GSCCRE Commercial Mortgage
Trust 2015-HULA as follows:

   -- Class A at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-CP at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-NCP at AAA (sf)

   -- Class B at AA (high) (sf)

   -- Class C at A (sf)

   -- Class D at BBB (high) (sf)

   -- Class E at BB (sf)

   -- Class F at B (low) (sf)

All trends are Stable.

The rating confirmations reflect the overall performance of the
transaction, which remains in line with DBRS's expectations at
issuance. This single-borrower transaction closed in October 2015
and is interest-only for the initial two-year term as well as
during the subsequent extension options of up to an additional five
years. The $299.1 million floating-rate trust note (Note A) is
supplemented by subordinate notes (Note B and Note C) totalling
$73.9 million. A $902,648 curtailment was applied to the trust
balance in November 2015, as a result of the sale of a residential
lot, which was part of the collateral.

The loan is secured by the fee simple and leasehold interests in
three distinct components of Hualalai at Historic Ka'upulehu, a
master-planned luxury resort community situated on a 724.9-acre
site along the desirable Kohala Coast in Kailua-Kona on the Big
Island of Hawaii. The collateral includes the leasehold interest in
(1) the Four Seasons Resort Hualalai, a 243-key ultra-luxury resort
hotel; (2) the private membership Hualalai Club operated by the
Four Seasons; and (3) the fee simple interest in the remaining 55
acres of residential land within the master-planned residential
resort community intended for future sale. The five-star resort and
membership club is situated in an irreplaceable location on the
Kohala Coast and features the most luxurious hotel destination
within the Hawaiian Islands, offering a total of eight unique
restaurants, a 30,700-square foot (sf) world-class spa and sports
club, seven pools, over 37,000 sf of indoor and outdoor meeting and
event space, five retail outlets and two world-class golf courses.

Demand for the subject is largely driven by guests from foreign
countries, particularly Japan, the continental U.S. and Canada.
According to the July 2016 year-to-date statistics by the Hawaii
Tourism Authority, visitor arrivals to the Big Island of Hawaii
remained flat year over year (+0.1%), while visitor expenditures
increased by 9.2% over the same period. More specifically, the Kona
side of the island (where the collateral is situated) saw a 0.8%
increase in visitors, as the decreased demand from Japan (-2.7%)
and Canada (-18.7%) was offset by increases from the Western U.S.
(+2.9%) and Eastern U.S. (+2.8%). Statewide, visitor expenditures
on lodging increased by 1.6% year over year.

The collateral's performance has remained stable since issuance, as
the YE2015 debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) for the total debt
was reported at 2.00 times (x), well above the DBRS stressed Term
DSCR of 1.42x. While occupancy decreased 1.0%, according to the
March 2016 trailing 12-month Smith Travel Research report, to 84.4%
from 85.4%, the average daily rate (ADR) over the same period
increased by 2.1% to $1,138 from $1,115. The resulting revenue per
available room (RevPAR) increased marginally by 0.8% to $960 from
$953. The property continues to significantly outperform its
competitive set, with occupancy, ADR and RevPAR penetration of
134.1%, 359.9% and 482.2%, respectively, as it has little to no
direct competition for the wealthy demand demographic it serves.

The loan benefits from strong institutional sponsorship, as it is
owned by joint venture partners MSD Capital, L.P., an investment
vehicle for Michael Dell and family, and Lake Avenue Investments,
an investment vehicle for a high net worth family. At issuance, the
sponsors planned to invest an additional $10.0 million ($41,000 per
key) on guest room and common area upgrades as well as additional
property-wide renovations in order to drive up the occupancy and
ADR at the property.


HARBOR SERIES 2006-2: Moody's Lowers Rating on Cl. B Notes to C
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings on these notes
issued by Harbor Series 2006-2 LLC:

  Cl. B, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Oct. 27, 2015,
   Downgraded to Ca (sf)
  Cl. C, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Oct. 27, 2015,
   Downgraded to Ca (sf)

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

  Cl. A, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct. 27, 2015,
   Affirmed Caa3 (sf)
  Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 27, 2015, Downgraded
   to C (sf)

                          RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has downgraded the ratings on two classes of notes due to
losses within the reference obligation pool combined with negative
credit migration as evidenced by the WARF and WARR.  Moody's has
affirmed the ratings of two classes of notes because the key
transaction metrics are commensurate with the existing rating.  The
rating action is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO
Synthetic) transactions.

Harbor Series 2006-2 LLC is a static synthetic transaction backed
by a portfolio of credit default swaps on commercial mortgage
backed securities (CMBS) (100% of the reference obligation pool
balance).  As of the September 20, 2016 trustee report, the
aggregate issued note balance of the transaction has decreased to
$103.7 million from $120 million at issuance, with the reference
pool amortization being paid to the notes on a pro-rata basis. This
transaction features a pro-rata to senior-sequential waterfall
switch which is based upon certain thresholds.  Moody's expects the
transaction waterfall to pay senior-sequential for the remainder of
the transaction life and has incorporated this into its analysis.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the reference obligations
it does not rate.  The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF
of 4157, compared to 1932 at last review.  The current ratings on
the Moody's-rated reference obligations and the assessments of the
non-Moody's rated reference obligations follow: Aaa-Aa1(0.6%
compared to 22.5% at last review); A1-A3(4.6% compared to 13.6% at
last review); Baa1-Baa3(18.4% compared to 12.0% at last review);
Ba1-Ba3(16.1% compared to 30.2% at last review); B1-B3(12.3%
compared to 5.7% at last review); and Caa1-Ca/C (48.0% compared to
16.0% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 1 year, compared to 2.5 years at last
review.  The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying look-through loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 6.2%, compared to 14.4% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 15.4%, compared to 13.9% at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in July 2015.

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the rated
notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption could be
offset by a change in one or more of the other key parameter
assumptions.  The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes
in the ratings of the underlying collateral and credit estimates.
Notching down 100% of the collateral pool by one notch 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).  Notching 100% of the collateral pool by one notch
would result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero notches upward (e.g., one notch up 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 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.


INSTITUTIONAL MORTGAGE 2016-7: DBRS Gives Prov BB Rating to F Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited assigned provisional ratings to the following classes
of Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-7
issued by Institutional Mortgage Securities Canada Inc., Series
2016-7.

   -- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class B at AA (sf)

   -- Class C at A (sf)

   -- Class D at BBB (sf)

   -- Class E at BBB (low) (sf)

   -- Class F at BB (sf)

   -- Class G at B (sf)

   -- Class X at AAA (sf)

Class X is notional. DBRS ratings on interest-only (IO)
certificates address the likelihood of receiving interest based on
the notional amount outstanding. DBRS considers the IO
certificates’ position within the transaction payment waterfall
when determining the appropriate rating.

The collateral for the transaction consists of 38 fixed-rate loans
secured by 60 properties. All loans in the transaction amortize for
the entire term; 65.9% of the pool by loan balance amortizes on
schedules that are 25 years or less, while 34.1% of the pool by
loan balance will amortize on schedules that are between 25 years
and 30 years. Seventeen loans (27.4% of the pool by loan balance)
were modelled with Strong sponsor strength, and 12 loans (38.0% of
the pool by loan balance) were considered to have meaningful
recourse to the respective sponsor; all else being equal, recourse
loans typically have lower probability of default and were modelled
as such.

The conduit pool was analyzed to determine the provisional ratings,
reflecting the long-term probability of loan default within the
term and its liquidity at maturity. When the cut-off loan balances
were measured against the DBRS Stabilized net cash flow and its
respective actual constants, DBRS did not identify any loans, based
on the trust A-note balances, as having a debt service coverage
ratio (DSCR) below 1.15 times (x), which is a threshold indicative
of a higher likelihood of mid-term default. In addition, to assess
refinance risk given the current low interest rate environment,
DBRS applied its refinance constants to the balloon amounts,
resulting in 32.6% of the pool, based on the trust A-note balance,
having refinance DSCRs below 1.00x. The DBRS weighted-average (WA)
Term DSCR and Going-in Debt Yield, based on the trust A-note
balances, are 1.47x and 9.2%, respectively. The DBRS WA Refi DSCR
and Exit Debt Yield, based on the trust A-note balances, are 1.22x
and 12.0%, respectively.

DBRS sampled 29 loans, representing 85.9% of the pool by loan
balance, and site inspections were performed on 47 properties,
representing 85.5% of the pool by loan allocated balance. Of the
sampled loans, three loans, representing 10.6% of the pool balance,
were considered to be of Above Average property quality.

The rating assigned to Class G materially deviates from the higher
rating implied by the quantitative model. DBRS considers a material
deviation to be a rating differential of three or more notches
between the assigned rating and the rating implied by the
quantitative model that is a substantial component of a rating
methodology; in this case, the assigned rating reflects expected
dispersion of loan-level cash flows post issuance and qualitative
loan-level factors that are not precisely captured in the
quantitative model, specficially sponsor concentrations within the
transaction.

The ratings that DBRS assigned to the Certificates are based
exclusively on the credit provided by the transaction structure and
underlying trust assets. All classes will be subject to ongoing
surveillance, which could result in upgrades or downgrades by DBRS
after the date of issuance.

Notes: All figures are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.




INSTITUTIONAL MORTGAGE 2016-7: Fitch to Rate Class G Notes Bsf
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on Institutional Mortgage
Securities Canada Inc.'s (IMSCI) Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2016-7.

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

   -- $187,994,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $117,230,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $8,809,000 class B 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $9,690,000 class C 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $9,690,000 class D 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $3,523,000 class E 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $4,845,000 class F 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $3,964,000 class G 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

All currencies are in Canadian dollars (CAD).

Fitch does not expect to rate the $352,352,065 (notional balance)
interest-only class X or the non-offered $6,607,065 class H
certificates.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 38 loans secured by 60
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$352,352,065 as of the cut-off date. The loans were originated or
acquired by IMC Limited Partnership, Trez Commercial Finance
Limited Partnership, and Royal Bank of Canada.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 76.9% of the properties
by balance and asset summary reviews and cash flow analysis of 100%
of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Lower Fitch Leverage: The transaction has better leverage than
other recent Fitch-rated Canadian multiborrower deals. The pool's
Fitch debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.19x is above the 2015
through 2016 year-to-date (YTD) average of 1.16x. The pool's Fitch
loan to value (LTV) of 102.9% is below the 2015 through 2016 YTD
average of 105.1%.

Significant Amortization: The pool's weighted average remaining
amortization term is 25.4 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 22.6% of the closing balance, which represents less
paydown than the 2015 through 2016 YTD Canadian average of 25.2%,
but significantly more paydown than the 2016 YTD U.S. multiborrower
average of 10.3%.

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. For more information on prior Canadian CMBS
securitizations, see Fitch Research on 'Canadian CMBS Default and
Loss Study,' dated October 2013.

Loan with Recourse: Of the pool, 64.4% has full or partial recourse
to the loan's non-SPE borrower and/or loan sponsor, which is less
than the 2015 through 2016 YTD Canadian transaction average of
75.8%. In Fitch's analysis, the probability of default (PD) is
reduced for loans with recourse.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 13.5% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI; for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period). The following rating
sensitivities describe how the ratings would react to further NCF
declines below Fitch's NCF. The implied rating sensitivities are
only indicative of some of the potential outcomes and do not
consider other risk factors to which the transaction is exposed.
Stressing additional risk factors may result in different outcomes.
Furthermore, the implied ratings, after the further NCF stresses
are applied, are more akin to what the ratings would be at deal
issuance had those further stressed NCFs been in place at that
time.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to IMSCI
2016-7 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 senior
'AAAsf' certificates to 'AA-sf' could result. In a more severe
scenario, where NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's NCF, a
downgrade of the senior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf ' could
result. The presale report includes a detailed explanation of
additional stresses and sensitivities on page 10.

USE OF THIRD-PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G-10

Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E ("Form 15E") as
prepared by KPMG LLP. The third-party due diligence described in
Form 15E focused on a comparison and re-computation of certain
characteristics with respect to each of the mortgage loans. Fitch
considered this information in its analysis and it did not have an
impact on Fitch's analysis or conclusions.


JFIN MM 2014: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class B, C, and D
notes and affirmed its ratings on the class A and E notes from JFIN
MM CLO 2014 Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
transaction that closed in April 2014 and is managed by Jefferies
Finance LLC.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance, using data from the September 2016 trustee report. The
transaction is scheduled to remain in its reinvestment period until
April 2017.

The upgrades primarily reflect credit quality stability in the
underlying collateral and collateral seasoning since S&P's
effective date rating affirmations in June 2015.

Collateral with an S&P Global Ratings' credit rating of 'BB-' or
higher has increased from the May 2015 effective date report used
for S&P's previous review.  The transaction has also benefited from
collateral seasoning, with the reported weighted average life
decreasing to 3.81 years from 4.49 years in May 2015.  This
seasoning has decreased the overall credit risk profile, which, in
turn, provided more cushion to the tranche ratings.  In addition,
the number of issuers in the portfolio has increased during this
period, which has increased diversification.

The transaction has experienced an increase in both defaults and
assets rated 'CCC+' and below since the May 2015 effective date
report.  Specifically, the amount of defaulted assets increased to
$10.25 million (3.55% of the aggregate principal balance) as of
September 2016 from $1.96 million as of the effective date report.
The level of assets rated 'CCC+' and below increased to
$23.94 million (8.28% of the aggregate principal balance) from
$22.00 million over the same period.  Overall, the increase in
defaulted assets and assets rated 'CCC+' and below has been largely
offset by the decline in the collateral portfolio's weighted
average life.  The increase in defaulted assets, as well as other
factors, has affected the level of credit support available to all
tranches, as seen by the mild decline in the overcollateralization
(O/C) ratios:

   -- The class A/B O/C ratio was 156.39%, down from 158.29%.
   -- The class C O/C ratio was 140.13%, down from 141.84%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio was 129.38%, down from 130.95%.
   -- The class E O/C ratio was 118.05%, down from 119.49%.

However, the current coverage test ratios are all passing and well
above their minimum threshold values.

Although S&P's cash flow analysis indicated higher ratings for the
class B, C, D, and E notes, its rating actions considers additional
sensitivity runs that considered the exposure to specific
distressed industries and allowed for volatility in the underlying
portfolio given that the transaction is still in its reinvestment
period.

The affirmations of the ratings on the class A and E notes reflect
S&P's belief that the credit support available is commensurate with
the current rating levels.

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 these rating
actions.

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

RATINGS RAISED

JFIN MM CLO 2014 Ltd.

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

RATINGS AFFIRMED

JFIN MM CLO 2014 Ltd.
                
Class         Rating
A             AAA (sf)
E             BB (sf)



JP MORGAN 2006-LDP7: Fitch Lowers Rating on Cl. C Certs to 'Csf'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings downgrades one class and affirms 12 classes of J. P.
Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp (JPMCC) commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-LDP7.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

The downgrade to class C is a result of a higher certainty of
losses based on the significant concentration of specially serviced
assets.

Fitch modeled losses of 50.9% of the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 13.9%, including $267
million (6.8% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date.  Fitch has designated 19 loans (90.5%) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes 18 specially serviced assets (87%).  The
transaction is highly concentrated with only 29 loans remaining of
the original 271 at issuance.  Of the remaining non-specially
serviced loans, one loan (1%) did not pay off at its anticipated
repayment date (ARD) of Oct. 1, 2016.  The remaining performing
loans have maturities in 2019 (6%), 2020 (3%), and 2% between 2021
and 2026.

As of the September 2016 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 85.9% to $555 million from
$3.94 billion at issuance.  No loans are defeased.  Interest
shortfalls are currently affecting classes A-J through NR.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the
specially-serviced Westfield Centro Portfolio asset (43.3% of the
pool), which is secured by a portfolio of four regional malls and
one anchored retail center totaling 2.4 million square feet (sf;
1.7 million sf of which is collateral) located in OH, CT, MO, CA,
and CO.  Westfield Eagle Rock (Los Angeles, CA) is a 460,000 sf
regional mall anchored by Macy's and Target is currently 97%
occupied; Westfield Midway Mall (Elyria, OH) is a 748,000 sf
regional mall anchored by JC Penney is currently 79% occupied;
Westfield West Park Mall (Cape Girardeau., MO) is a 407,000 sf
regional mall is anchored by Macy's, JC Penney and is currently 72%
occupied; Westfield Enfield Square (Enfield, CT) is a 548,000 sf
regional mall anchored by Sears and Target (Macy's is not part of
the collateral and vacated April 2016) is currently 80% occupied;
and Westfield Westland Town Center (Lakewood, CO) is a 328,000 sf
power center anchored by Lowe's is currently 97% occupied.  The
loan was transferred to special servicing in May 2014 for imminent
default.  The loan matured in July 2016.  The properties are all
real estate owned (REO) as of Feburary 2016. Per the special
servicer, there are currently no disposition plans for any of the
properties and they are working to identify leasing opportunities.


The next largest contributor to expected losses is the Linden Plaza
A/B note loan (5.9%), which is secured by a 277,717 sf retail
center anchored by Walmart.  The major tenants include Modell's and
Dollar Tree with lease expirations in 2023 and 2022. Dress Barn
(3%) vacated the property at lease expiration in June 2016.  The
loan was modified in September 2015 and terms included A/B note
structure and extension of the maturity date to May 1, 2019.  The
property suffered declines in occupancy in 2013 when two major
tenants who occupied 49,986 sf and 20,786 sf, respectively, vacated
their space.  The property was 69% occupied as of July 2016.  The
master servicer reported a new lease was signed with Integrity
Staffing Solutions for 3,000 sf which commenced Oct. 1, 2016.  The
borrower has engaged a third-party broker to assist with leasing at
the property.  Per the master servicer, the local market conditions
are transitioning and the demographic has changed and more retail
competition has emerged. The rental rates at the property are 25%
below the market rates.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is the
specially-serviced Hilton - Lisle/Naperville loan (6.4%), which is
secured by a full- service hotel consisting of 309 rooms located in
Lisle, IL.  The loan was transferred to special servicing on Feb.
12, 2016 for imminent default as the borrower was unable to
refinance and pay off the loan at maturity due to insufficient
property cash flow.  Additionally, the Hilton franchise agreement
expired at maturity.  The borrower has secured a short-term
extension until Dec. 31, 2016.  Per the special servicer, they are
proceeding with foreclosure plans while continuing discussions with
the borrower. A receivership hearing is scheduled for Oct. 24,
2016.  The property was 64% occupied as of May 2016 with an average
daily rate (ADR) of $110 and revenue per available room (RevPAR) of
$70 which represents a 2% decrease year over year compared to a 3%
increase for its competitive set.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook on class A-M remains Negative due to the large
number of specially serviced assets and the potential for increased
expected losses and/or interest shortfalls.  Although class A-J is
currently recouping prior interest shortfalls, Fitch remains
concerned with the potential for future interest shortfalls to
increase should additional loans transfer to special servicing or
if current specially serviced assets are not disposed of in a
timely fashion.  If interest shortfalls and/or expected losses
increase, a downgrade to class A-M is possible.  However, if
specially serviced assets are disposed of and expected losses
remain stable, the Rating Outlook may be revised to Stable.
Downgrades are likely to class A-J and B as additional losses are
incurred; upgrades are not likely.

Fitch downgrades this class:

   -- $44.3 million class C to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%.

Fitch also affirms these classes and revises REs as indicated:

   -- $34 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $310.3 million class A-J at 'CCCsf'; RE 75%;
   -- $78.8 million class B at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $14.8 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $39.4 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $33.5 million class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3A, A-3FL, A-3B, A-4, A-SB and A-1A
certificates have paid in full.  Fitch does not rate the class N,
P, Q and NR certificates.  Fitch previously withdrew the rating on
the interest-only class X certificates.


JP MORGAN 2013-C17: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 13 classes of JP Morgan Chase Commercial
Mortgage Securities Trust (JPMBB 2013-C17) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2013-C17.

                         KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on overall stable performance of the
underlying collateral pool.  As of year-end 2015, aggregate
pool-level NOI has improved 4.8% from 2014 and remains 2.5% higher
than issuance.  As of the September 2016 remittance, the pool's
aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 2.4% to $1.056
billion from $1.082 billion at issuance.

There have been no delinquent, specially serviced or defeased loans
since issuance.  Nine loans appear on the servicer's watchlist
(9.3%) due to declines in Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR), large
tenant lease expiration, and a major casualty event. In particular,
The Palms at Westheimer (2.2% of the pool) was affected by two
incidences of fire in December 2015 displacing residents and
destroying multiple units.  The borrower has stated 52 of 798 units
were taken off-line and are in the process of being restored.
Since the fire, the borrower has made timely payments and an
insurance check was deposited into a loss draft account.  The
borrower has sufficient loss business coverage extending for 12
months.

The Dolfield Business Park loan (0.9%) is a notable Fitch Loan of
Concern due to a substantial decline in occupancy to 39% from 91%
due to several large tenants vacating at lease expiration.  The
loan is secured by a 71,400 sf office property in Owings Mills, MD.
The borrower has several parties interested in the vacant space.

The pool has two properties, Rivertowne Commons and Springfield
Plaza (7.2%) with exposure to K-Mart as a tenant.  K-Mart
represents at least 20% of the NRA at each property.  Although
neither store was listed on any recent closing list, the exposure
remains a concern based on the distressed credit of the retailer
and pattern of frequent store closures.

This pool has an above-average concentration of multifamily
properties, which represent 25.6% of the total pool balance.  This
is above the average concentrations of 12.2% for the 2013 vintage
for Fitch-rated transactions.  Additionally, this transaction has a
below-average concentration of hotel properties, which represent
8.5% of the total pool balance; the 2013 vintage average hotel
concentration was 14.2%.

The largest loan in the pool, Jordan Creek Town Center (10.9% of
the pool), is a 10-year amortizing loan.  The loan is subject to a
$100 million pari passu note which is part of the JPMCC 2014-C18
transaction.  The collateral consists of 503,034 sf of a 1.1
million-sf regional mall located in West Des Moines, IA.  The
property is anchored by Dillard's (non-collateral), Younkers
(non-collateral) and Scheels All Sports.  Sponsored by GGP, the
loan is performing in line with expectations at issuance.  As of
June 2016, the mall was 94% occupied, compared to 95% at issuance.
The servicer reported second quarter 2016 (2Q16) DSCR was 1.66x,
compared to 1.63x at year-end (YE) 2015 and 1.59x at issuance.  The
Des Moines market is experiencing substantial growth with numerous
development projects slated for completion including new retail
developments, residential projects and several billion-dollar data
centers planned by Google, Microsoft and Facebook.

The second largest loan, EIP National Portfolio (8.8%), is secured
by seven industrial buildings encompassing 3.2 million sf.  The
properties are located in six states, with two in Ohio and one each
in Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas and Michigan. The
portfolio is currently leased to seven tenants: Toys 'R' Us,
Staples (rated 'BBB-'), Rite-Aid, International Paper Company,
Plastipak Packaging, HEB Grocery Company and Commonwealth, Inc.  As
of March 2016, the portfolio was 100% occupied with reported DSCR
of 1.72x.  Three tenants (50% of NRA) have extended lease terms
since issuance, including the largest tenant in the portfolio, Toys
'R' Us (20%), and the second largest tenant, Staples (17%) which
renewed for seven and 10 years, respectively. The Toys 'R' Us at
the Youngstown, OH location was replaced by HMS Manufacturing Co.
on a lease through 2022.  Rite-Aid (13%) also renewed for five
years, which mitigates the risk of closure due to the proposed
acquisition of Rite-Aid by Walgreens Boots Alliance.

The third largest loan, The Aire (8.4%), is secured by a 43-story
luxury multifamily building located on the Upper West Side of
Manhattan.  The property is a 310-unit, 42-story luxury residential
building constructed in 2010 that features numerous amenities and
high-end finishes.  Lincoln Center and The Julliard School are
located across the street from The Aire, and Central Park,
Riverside Park and The Shops at Columbus Circle are within walking
distance.  The loan is subject to a $135 million pari passu note,
which is part of the JPMCC 2013-C16 transaction.  The collateral is
performing in line with underwritten expectations with occupancy of
95% (as of June 2016) and second quarter 2016 DSCR of 1.77x,
compared to the 92% occupancy and 1.16x DSCR at issuance.
According to Reis' 2Q16 report, the Upper West Side submarket of
Manhattan had an apartment vacancy rate of 4.3% with average asking
rents of $5,006.  The subject is performing in-line with the
submarket.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks for all classes remain Stable due to overall stable
performance of the pool and continued amortization. Upgrades may
occur with improved pool performance and significant paydown or
defeasance.  Downgrades to the classes are possible should overall
pool performance decline.  Fitch will continue to monitor the
performance of the properties with exposure to K-Mart and the
potential for closure.

Fitch affirms these classes:

   -- $35.9 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $67.6 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $210 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $319.1 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $98.6 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $83.9 million** class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $815.1 million* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $62.2 million** class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $47.3 million** class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $193.4 million** class EC at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $48.7 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $21.6 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $12.2 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

* Notional amount and interest-only.

** Class A-S, B and C certificates may be exchanged for a related
amount of class EC certificates, and class EC certificates may be
exchanged for class A-S, B and C certificates

Fitch does not rate the class NR and X-C certificates.  Fitch
previously withdrew the rating on the interest-only class X-B
certificates.


JP MORGAN 2016-WIKI: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to J.P. Morgan
Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-WIKI's $400 million
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2016-WIKI.

The issuance is a CMBS transaction backed by one fixed-rate
commercial mortgage loan totaling $400 million, secured by a
first-mortgage lien on the borrowers' leasehold interest in the
1,230-room Hyatt Regency-Waikiki Beach Resort & Spa.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 6,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings assigned reflect S&P' 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

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-WIKI

Class       Prelim rating         Amount ($)

A           AAA (sf)             138,800,000
X-A         AAA (sf)            138,800,000*
X-B         A- (sf)              84,100,000*
B           AA- (sf)              48,200,000
C           A- (sf)               35,900,000
D           BBB- (sf)             47,400,000
E           BB- (sf)              68,600,000
F           B- (sf)               61,100,000

Note: The certificates will be issued to qualified institutional
buyers according to Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933.
*Notional balance.  The notional amount of the class X-A
certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount of principal
distributions and realized losses allocated to class A
certificates.  The notional amount of the class X-B certificates
will be reduced by the aggregate amount of principal distributions
and realized losses allocated to the class B and C certificates.



LIGHTPOINT CLO VII: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by LightPoint CLO VII, Ltd.:

US $25,000,000 Class B Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on January 14, 2016 Upgraded to
Aa2 (sf)

US $18,000,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on January 14, 2016 Upgraded to
Baa2 (sf)

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

   -- US $335,250,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes Due 2021
      (current outstanding balance of $77,119,260), Affirmed Aaa
      (sf); previously on January 14, 2016 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- US $21,250,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
      Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on January 14, 2016 Affirmed
      Aaa (sf)

   -- US $17,000,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
      2021, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on January 14, 2016
      Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization (OC) ratios since January 2016. The Class
A-1 notes have been paid down by approximately 55.9% or $97.9
million since then. Based on Moody's calculation, the OC ratios for
the Class A-1, A-2, B, C and D notes are currently at 214.5%,
168.2%, 134.1%, 117.0%, and 104.5%, respectively, versus January
2016 levels of 151.3%, 134.9%, 119.7%, 110.7% and 103.3%,
respectively.

Nevertheless, the credit quality of the portfolio has deteriorated
since January 2016. Based on Moody's calculation, the weighted
average rating factor (WARF) is currently 2754, compared to 2329 in
January 2016.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
December 2015.

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

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

   -- 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.

   -- 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.

   -- 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.

   -- 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.

   -- 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.

   -- Exposure to assets with low credit quality and weak
      liquidity: The presence of assets rated the worst Moody's
      speculative grade liquidity (SGL) rating, SGL-4, exposes the

      notes to additional risks if these assets default. The
      historical default rate is higher than average for these
      assets. Due to the deal's exposure to such assets, which
      constitute around $3.5 million of par, Moody's ran a
      sensitivity case defaulting those 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% (2203)

   -- Class A-1: 0

   -- Class A-2: 0

   -- Class B: +1

   -- Class C: +3

   -- Class D: +2

   Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3305)

   -- Class A-1: 0

   -- Class A-2: 0

   -- Class B: -1

   -- Class C: -1

   -- Class D: 0

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

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 $165.4 million, no defaulted par, a
weighted average default probability of 15.93% (implying a WARF of
2754), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 51.10%, a
diversity score of 26 and a weighted average spread of 3.13%
(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.


MERRILL LYNCH 2005-LC1: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its ratings on two classes of
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Trust 2005-LC1, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction.

The affirmations on classes F and G 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.

While available credit enhancement levels suggest positive rating
movements on classes F and G, S&P's analysis also considered the
susceptibility to reduced liquidity support from the eight
specially serviced assets ($48.5 million, 85.5%).  Furthermore, S&P
also considered the DRS Tactical Systems Office Building loan ($8.2
million, 14.4%), which is currently on the master servicer's
watchlist due to a low reported debt service coverage (DSC).  The
loan reported a DSC of 0.02x as of March 2016 because the sole
tenant at the collateral property vacated at its lease expiration.
S&P considered the possibility of reduced liquidity support from
this loan and the specially serviced assets in its rating of
classes F and G.

                         TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 12, 2016, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $56.8 million, which is 3.7% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes six loans and four real
estate owned (REO) assets, down from 142 loans at issuance.  Eight
of these assets are with the special servicer and one is on the
master servicer's watchlist.  The master servicer,
Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, reported financial information
for 83.3% of the assets in the pool, of which 97.9% was year-end
2015 data and the remainder was year-end 2014 data.

S&P calculated a 1.60x S&P Global Ratings weighted average DSC and
61.8% S&P Global Ratings weighted average loan-to-value (LTV) ratio
using a 8.25% S&P Global Ratings weighted average capitalization
rate.  The DSC, LTV, and capitalization rate calculations exclude
the eight specially serviced assets.

To date, the transaction has experienced $46.2 million in principal
losses, or 3.0% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P expects
losses to reach approximately 4.3% 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 specially serviced assets.

                        CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Sept. 12, 2016, trustee remittance report, eight assets
in the pool were with the special servicer, LNR Partners LLC (LNR).
Details of the two largest specially serviced assets are:

   -- The Stirling Town Center asset ($11.3 million, 19.8%) is the

      largest asset with LNR and is the largest asset in the pool,

      with a total reported exposure of $14.9 million.  The asset
      is a retail center totaling 53,849 sq. ft. in Cooper City,
      Fla.  The loan was transferred to the special servicer in
      September 2011 due to payment default, and the property
      Became REO on March 5, 2014.  LNR stated that the asset is
      on the market with Newmark and will be included in the
      November 2016 auction.  A $3.8 million appraisal reduction
      amount (ARA) is in effect against this asset.  S&P expects a

      moderate loss (26%-59%) upon this asset’s eventual
      resolution.

   -- The Rochester Hills Shopping Center loan ($10.5 million,
      18.4%) is the second-largest asset with LNR and is the
      second-largest asset in the pool with a total reported
      exposure of $11.3 million.  The loan is secured by a 95,673-
      sq.-ft. retail property in Rochester Hills, Mich.  The loan
      was transferred to the special servicer in September 2015
      due to imminent maturity default.  LNR stated that it is
      moving forward with foreclosure.  The reported DSC and
      occupancy as of year-end 2015 were 1.19x and 61.9%,
      respectively.  An ARA of $4.6 million is in effect against
      this loan.  S&P expects a moderate loss upon this loan's
      eventual resolution.

The six remaining assets with the special servicer have each
individual balances that represent less than 16.7% of the total
pool trust balance.  S&P estimated losses for the eight specially
serviced assets, arriving at a weighted average loss severity of
41.9%.

RATINGS LIST

Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust
Commercial mortgage pass through certificates series 2005-LC1
                                         Rating
Class             Identifier             To              From
F                 59022HNK4              B+ (sf)         B+ (sf)
G                 59022HNL2              B- (sf)         B- (sf)



MORGAN STANLEY 2004-HQ4: Fitch Withdraws Dsf Rating on 7 Tranches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings withdraws the ratings on seven classes of Morgan
Stanley Capital I Trust's (MSCI) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2004-HQ4, as a result of realized losses. The
trust balances have been reduced to $0.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The trust balances have been reduced to $0 or have experienced
non-recoverable realized losses and are no longer considered by
Fitch to be relevant to the agency's coverage.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

All classes have been paid in full, partially repaid with a
realized loss, or fully written down due to realized losses.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relation
to this rating action.

Fitch withdraws the ratings on the following classes:

   --$0 class J at 'Dsf/RE 5%';

   --$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%'.


MOUNTAIN VIEW II: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Mountain View CLO II Ltd.:

   -- US $24,100,000 Class C Floating Rate Deferrable Notes Due
      January 2021, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on February
      11, 2016 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

   -- US $19,700,000 Class D Floating Rate Deferrable Notes Due
      January 2021, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on February
      11, 2016 Affirmed Baa2 (sf)

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

   -- US $217,000,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes Due January
      2021 (current outstanding balance of $121,114,204), Affirmed

      Aaa (sf); previously on February 11, 2016 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- US $118,000,000 Class A-2 Delayed Draw Floating Rate Notes
      Due January 2021 (current outstanding balance of
      $65,859,337), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on February 11,
      2016 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- US $7,000,000 Class A-3 Delayed Draw Floating Rate Notes Due

      January 2021 (current outstanding balance of $3,906,910),
      Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on February 11, 2016 Affirmed
      Aaa (sf)

   -- US $26,000,000 Class B Floating Rate Notes Due January 2021,

      Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on February 11, 2016 Affirmed
      Aaa (sf)

   -- US $14,700,000 Class E Floating Rate Deferrable Notes Due
      January 2021, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on February 11,
      2016 Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Mountain View CLO II Ltd., issued in December 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in January 2014.

RATINGS RATIONALE

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization (OC) ratios since February 2016. The Class A
notes have been collectively paid down by approximately 22.7% or
$55.9 million since that time. Based on the trustee's August 2016
report, the OC ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, Class D and Class
E notes are reported at 131.41%, 118.27%, 109.33% and 103.50%,
respectively, versus February 2016 levels of 125.34%, 115.17%,
108.00% and 103.21%, respectively.

Nevertheless, the credit quality of the portfolio has deteriorated
since February 2016. Based on Moody's calculation, the weighted
average rating factor (WARF) is currently 2816 compared to 2576 at
that time.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
December 2015.

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

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

   -- 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.

   -- 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.

   -- 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.

   -- 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.

   -- 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.

   -- Post-Reinvestment Period Trading: Subject to certain
      requirements, the deal can reinvest certain proceeds after
      the end of the reinvestment period, and as such the manager
      has the ability to erode some of the collateral quality
      metrics to the covenant levels. Such reinvestment could
      affect the transaction either positively or negatively.

   -- Exposure to assets with low credit quality and weak
      liquidity: The presence of assets rated Caa3 with a negative

      outlook, Caa2 or Caa3 on review for downgrade or the worst
      Moody's speculative grade liquidity (SGL) rating, SGL-4,
      exposes the notes to additional risks if these assets
      default. The historical default rate is higher than average
      for these assets. Due to the deal's exposure to such assets,

      which constitute around $7.7 million of par, Moody's ran a
      sensitivity case defaulting those 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% (2253)

   -- Class A-1: 0

   -- Class A-2: 0

   -- Class A-3: 0

   -- Class B: 0

   -- Class C: +2

   -- Class D: +2

   -- Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3380)

   -- Class A-1: 0

   -- Class A-2: 0

   -- Class A-3: 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 "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations."

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 $284.1 million, defaulted par of
$12.1 million, a weighted average default probability of 13.38%
(implying a WARF of 2816), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 50.37%, a diversity score of 35 and a weighted average
spread of 3.40% (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 structured finance 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 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, for
each credit estimate whose related exposure constitutes more than
3% of the collateral pool, Moody's applied a two-notch equivalent
assumed downgrade. In this analysis, such an adjustment impacted
approximately 3.08% of the pool.


NATIONSTAR HECM: Moody's Puts Ba2 Rating on M2 Debt on Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has placed the ratings of eight tranches
from four transactions issued by Nationstar HECM Loan on review
with the direction uncertain.  The collateral backing these
transactions consists of pools of first-lien inactive HECMs.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Nationstar HECM Loan Trust 2015-2

  Cl. M1, A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
   previously on Nov. 24, 2015, Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

  Cl. M2, Ba2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
   previously on Nov. 24, 2015, Definitive Rating Assigned
   Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: Nationstar HECM Loan Trust 2016-1

  Cl. M1, A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
   previously on March 2, 2016, Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

  Cl. M2, Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
   previously on March 2, 2016, Definitive Rating Assigned
   Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Nationstar HECM Loan Trust 2016-2

  Cl. M1, A3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
   previously on June 29, 2016, Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

  Cl. M2, Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
   previously on June 29, 2016, Definitive Rating Assigned
   Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Nationstar HECM Loan Trust 2016-3

  Cl. M1, A2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
   previously on Aug. 17, 2016, Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

  Cl. M2, Ba2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
   previously on Aug. 17, 2016, Definitive Rating Assigned
   Ba2 (sf)

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

The review action is a result of notification of incorrect data
provided to us by Nationstar when assigning ratings on the four
transactions.

On Oct. 4, Nationstar informed Moody's that the unpaid balance at
the called due date provided at the time of deals' issuance was
incorrect for approximately 500 loans across the four transactions.
The called due balance was overstated by between $8,000 and
$45,000 per loan; overall, the overstated amount totals roughly $15
million.  Nationstar has advised Moody's that the error was due to
their receipt of incorrect information from a third-party
originator at the time of loan boarding, and that Nationstar
identified the error while conducting review procedures.

The unpaid principal balance at the called due date is the balance
of the loan at the time the loan becomes due and payable.  The
unpaid balance at the called due date is used when filing insurance
claims with HUD and a downward revision to this variable implies
that insurance proceeds could be lower than initially expected.

Moody's is awaiting the revised closing and remittance tapes from
Nationstar.  Once Moody's receives the updated data, it will assess
the credit rating impact.

The ratings were placed on review because they could be negatively
impacted by the overstatement of the unpaid balance at the called
due date.  However, the rated bonds have built up significant
credit enhancement since issuance which could offset any negative
impact from the data error.  The final rating actions will take
into consideration the corrected data and the most updated
performance which includes improvements in credit enhancement and
liquidations to date.

Moody's has also observed delays in the recognition of gross
write-offs across the four transactions.  Such delays have a
negative impact on performance by increasing the length of time
between when a loan is fully liquidated and when the servicer
reimburses the trust due to servicing errors.  Moody's has
discussed this issue with Nationstar and they have informed us that
the delays will be addressed within the next few months.

The action is based solely on the reported data error on the four
transactions.

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Securitisations Backed by Non-Performing and Re-Performing
Loans," published in August 2016 and "Moody's Global Approach to
Rating Reverse Mortgage Securitizations," published in May 2015.

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

Up
Levels of credit protection that are higher than necessary to
protect investors against current expectations of stress could
drive the ratings up.  Transaction performance depends greatly on
the US macro economy and housing market.  Property markets could
improve from our original expectations resulting in appreciation
in the value of the mortgaged property and faster property sales.

Down
Levels of credit protection that are insufficient to protect
investors against current expectations of stresses could drive the
ratings down.  Transaction performance depends greatly on the US
macro economy and housing market.  Property markets could
deteriorate from our original expectations resulting in
depreciation in the value of the mortgaged property and slower
property sales.

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.



NRZ ADVANCE 2015-ON1: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on 2 Tranches
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to NRZ Advance
Receivables Trust 2015-ON1's $400 million advance
receivables-backed notes series 2016-T2 and $400 million advance
receivables-backed notes series 2016-T3.

The note issuance is a servicer advance transaction backed by
servicer advance and accrued and unpaid servicing fee
reimbursements.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 11,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The strong likelihood of reimbursement of servicer advance
      receivables given the priority of such reimbursement
      payments;

   -- The transaction's revolving period, during which collections

      or draws on the outstanding variable funding note may be
      used to fund additional advance receivables, and the
      specified eligibility requirements, collateral value
      exclusions, credit enhancement test (the collateral test),
      and amortization triggers intended to maintain pool quality
      and credit enhancement during this period;

   -- The transaction's use of predetermined, rating category-
      specific advance rates for each receivable type in the pool
      that discount the receivables, which are non-interest
      bearing, to satisfy the interest obligations on the notes,
      as well as provide for dynamic overcollateralization;

   -- The projected timing of reimbursements of the servicer
      advance receivables, which, in the 'AAA', 'AA', and 'A'
      scenarios, reflects S&P's assumption that the servicer would

      be replaced, while in the 'BBB' and 'BB' scenarios, reflects

      the servicer's historical reimbursement experience;

   -- The credit enhancement in the form of overcollateralization,

      subordination, and the series reserve accounts;

   -- The timely interest and full principal payments made under
      S&P's stressed cash flow modeling scenarios consistent with
      the assigned preliminary ratings; and

   -- The transaction's sequential turbo payment structure that
      applies during any full amortization period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

NRZ Advance Receivables Trust 2015-ON1 (Series 2016-T2 and 2016-T3)


Class       Rating          Type            Interest        Amount
                                            rate          (mil. $)
Series 2016-T2
A-T2        AAA (sf)        Term note       Fixed          328.764
B-T2        AA (sf)         Term note       Fixed           11.418
C-T2        A (sf)          Term note       Fixed           13.103
D-T2        BBB (sf)        Term note       Fixed           42.184
E-T2        BB (sf)         Term note       Fixed            4.531

Series 2016-T3
A-T3        AAA (sf)        Term note       Fixed          322.060
B-T3        AA (sf)         Term note       Fixed           11.156
C-T3        A (sf)          Term note       Fixed           12.653
D-T3        BBB (sf)        Term note       Fixed           47.109
E-T3        BB (sf)         Term note       Fixed            7.022


ONE LIBERTY: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class C Notes
---------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its rating on the class B notes from
Liberty CLO Ltd.  S&P also removed this rating from CreditWatch,
where it placed it with positive implications on July 14, 2016.  At
the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class C notes from
the same transaction.  Liberty CLO Ltd. is a cash flow
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that closed in December 2005
and is managed by Highland Capital Management L.P.  The rating
actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's performance using
data from the Aug. 31, 2016 trustee report.

The upgraded rating reflects the transaction's $86.88 million of
collective paydown to the rated notes since S&P's October 2015
rating actions, which has previously paid off in full the class
A-3 and A-4 notes, and has left the class B notes with
approximately 83.97% of their original balance remaining.  These
paydowns resulted in improved reported overcollateralization (O/C)
ratios since the August 2015 trustee report, which S&P used for its
previous rating actions:

   -- The class B O/C ratio improved to 199.19% from 136.89%.
   -- The class C O/C ratio improved to 114.59% from 110.64%.

The collateral portfolio's credit quality has also improved since
S&P's last rating actions, as demonstrated by a decrease in both
low rated and defaulted securities.  Collateral obligations with
ratings in the 'CCC' category have decreased, with $10.28 million
reported as of the August 2016 trustee report, compared with $17.92
million reported as of the August 2015 trustee report, and the
amount of defaulted collateral held in the portfolio has decreased
to $37.23 million from $40.98 million.  Despite these decreases,
the concentrations of both 'CCC' and defaulted collateral as a
proportion of the portfolio have increased, as assets are
amortizing and the portfolio is becoming more concentrated.  As of
August 2016, the transaction holds less than 20 individual
performing issuers in the underlying portfolio. Notwithstanding
this concentration, the transaction has benefited from a drop in
the weighted average life due to underlying collateral's seasoning,
with 1.11 years reported as of the August 2016 trustee report,
compared with 1.81 years reported as of the August 2015 trustee
report.

The transaction has significant exposure to long-dated assets
(assets maturing after the CLO's stated maturity).  According to
the August 2016 trustee report, the balance of collateral with a
maturity date after the transaction's stated maturity totaled
$24.10 million (20.72% of the portfolio).  A CLO concentrated in
long-dated assets could be exposed to market value risk at maturity
because the collateral manager may have to sell long-dated assets
for less than par to repay the CLO's rated notes when they mature.
S&P's analysis and rating actions took into account the potential
market value risk and settlement-related risk arising from the
possible liquidation of the remaining securities on the
transaction's legal final maturity date.

The affirmation reflects S&P's view that the credit support
available is commensurate with the current rating levels.

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

RATING RAISED

Liberty CLO Ltd.
                  Rating
Class         To          From

B             AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)/Watch Pos

RATING AFFIRMED

Liberty CLO Ltd.

Class        Rating

C            B+ (sf)


OZLM FUNDING II: S&P Gives Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. D-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to OZLM Funding
II Ltd.'s $498.50 million replacement notes.  This is a proposed
refinancing of its November 2012 transaction.  The replacement
notes will be issued via a proposed supplemental indenture.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's opinion that the credit
support available is commensurate with the associated rating
levels.

On the Oct. 31, 2016, refinancing date, proceeds from the issuance
of the replacement notes are expected to redeem the original notes,
upon which S&P anticipates withdrawing the ratings on the original
notes and assigning ratings to the replacement notes. However, if
the refinancing doesn't occur, S&P may affirm the ratings on the
original notes and withdraw our preliminary ratings on the
replacement notes.

Based on provisions in the supplemental indenture:

   -- The replacement class A-2-R and B-R notes are expected to be

      issued at a lower spread than the original notes.  The
      replacement class A-1-R, C-R and D-R notes are expected to
      be issued at a higher spread than the original notes.

   -- The reinvestment period and weighted average life test date
      will be extended by 2.5 years and the stated maturity will
      be extended four years.

   -- The overcollateralization levels will be amended.

   -- The transaction will incorporate the formula version of
      Standard & Poor's CDO Monitor tool.

    -- The transaction will incorporate the recovery rate
       methodology and updated industry classifications as
       outlined in S&P's August 2016 CLO criteria update.

Replacement issuances

Class                Amount    Interest        
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)        
A-1-R                336.50    3ML plus 1.44
A-2a-R                52.90    3ML plus 2.00
A-2b-R                10.00    3.34
B-R                   45.80    3ML plus 2.75
C-R                   26.50    3ML plus 4.00
D-R                   26.80    3ML plus 7.30
Subordinated notes    61.60    N/A

Original notes

Class                Amount    Interest        
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)        
A-1                  336.50    3ML plus 1.48
A-2                   62.90    3ML plus 2.65
B                     45.80    3ML plus 3.25
C                     26.50    3ML plus 4.35
D                     26.80    3ML plus 5.30
Subordinated notes    61.60    N/A

3ML--Three-month LIBOR.
N/A--Not applicable.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as presented to S&P in
connection with this review, 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 or
ultimate principal, or both, 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 preliminary rating levels associated
with these rating actions.

S&P's review of the transaction also relied in part upon a criteria
interpretation with respect to ""CDOs: Mapping A Third Party's
Internal Credit Scoring System To Standard & Poor's Global Rating
Scale," published May 8, 2014, which allows S&P to use a limited
number of public ratings from other NRSROs for the purposes of
assessing the credit quality of assets not rated by Standard &
Poor's.  The criteria provide specific guidance for treatment of
corporate assets not rated by S&P Global Ratings, and the
interpretation outlines treatment of securitized assets.

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.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

OZLM Funding II Ltd./OZLM Funding II LLC
                                   Amount
Replacement class    Rating      (mil. $)
A-1-R                AAA (sf)      336.50
A-2a-R               AA+ (sf)       52.90
A-2b-R               AA+ (sf)       10.00
B-R                  A+ (sf)        45.80
C-R                  BBB (sf)       26.50
D-R                  BB (sf)        26.80
Subordinated notes   NR             61.60

NR--Not rated.



PUTNAM STRUCTURED 2001-1: Moody's Raises Rating on C-1 Debt to B3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on these notes
issued by Putnam Structured Product CDO 2001-1 Ltd.:

  $9,000,000 Class C-1 Floating Rate Notes due 2037, Upgraded to
   B3 (sf); previously on Oct 16, 2015 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)
  $9,000,000 Class C-2 Fixed Rate Notes Due 2037, Upgraded to
   B3 (sf); previously on Oct 16, 2015 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has upgraded the ratings due to rapid full and partial
amortization of collateral since last review in the order of
approximately $21.6 million.  This more than offset the increase in
credit risk of the remaining collateral pool as evidenced by WARF
and WARR.  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.

Putnam 2001-1 is a cash transaction whose reinvestment period ended
in November 2006.  The transaction, excluding a tendered REIT
asset, is backed by a portfolio of: i) asset backed securities
(ABS) (49.6% of the pool balance), primarily in the form of home
equity and Alt-A securities; ii) CRE CDO bonds (31.8%); and iii)
corporate bonds (18.5%).  As of the trustee's August 18, 2016
report, the aggregate note balance of the transaction, including
preferred shares, is $28.7 million, as compared to $300.0 million
at issuance with the paydown directed to the senior most
outstanding class of notes, as a result of regular amortization.

The pool contains nineteen assets totaling $11.4 million (33.7% of
the collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted
securities as of the trustee's August 18, 2016 report.  Seventeen
of these assets (60.3% of the defaulted balance) are RMBS, and two
assets are CRE CDO (39.7%).  While there have been limited realized
losses on the underlying collateral to date, Moody's does expect
moderate/high 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 3535,
compared to 2390 at last review.  The current ratings, excluding a
tendered REIT asset, on the Moody's-rated collateral and the
assessments of the non-Moody's rated collateral follow: Aaa-Aa3
(27.4% compared to 19.6% at last review); A1-A3 (8.3% compared to
0.0% at last review); Baa1-Baa3 (6.2% compared to 44.2% at last
review); Ba1-Ba3 (17.2% compared to 7.1% at last review); B1-B3
(0.3% compared to 5.5% at last review); and Caa1-Ca/C (40.7%,
compared to 23.6% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.8 years, as compared to 4.0 years at
last review.  The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on
the underlying look-through collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 19.6%, as compared to 21.2% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 0%, same as that at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:
The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in July 2015.

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the rated
notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption could be
offset by a change in one or more of the other key parameter
assumptions.  The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes
in the ratings recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments.  Reducing the recovery rates of 100% of the
collateral pool by 5% would result in an average modeled rating
movement on the rated notes of zero to two 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%
would result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero to one notches upward (e.g., one notch up 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 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.


PUTNAM STRUCTURED 2003-1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on A-2 Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the following
notes issued by Putnam Structured Product Funding 2003-1 Ltd/Putnam
Structured Product Funding 2003-1 LLC:

  Cl. A-1LT-a, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct. 9, 2015,
   Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)
  Cl. A-1LT-b, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct. 9, 2015,
   Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)
  Cl. A-1LT-c, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct. 9, 2015,
   Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)
  Cl. A-2, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct. 9, 2015,
   Affirmed Caa3 (sf)
  Cl. B, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Oct. 9, 2015, Affirmed
   Ca (sf)
  Cl. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. Equity, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 9, 2015,
   Affirmed C (sf)

Moody's has affirmed the ratings on the transaction because its key
transaction metrics are commensurate with existing ratings. While
the credit quality of the remaining pool has decreased as evidenced
by WARF and WARR, there has been material amortization since last
review that has offset any migration in credit quality. The
affirmations are the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO &
Re-REMIC) transactions.

Putnam Funding 2003-1 is a cash transaction whose reinvestment
period ended in October 2010.  The transaction is backed by a
portfolio of: i) asset backed securities (ABS) (61% of the pool
balance) which are primarily in the form of subprime Residential
Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS); ii) CRE CDO bonds (20.1%); and
iii) commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) (18.9%).  As of
the trustee's September 8, 2016 report, the aggregate note balance
of the transaction, including preferred shares, is $193.1 million,
as compared to $561 million at issuance with the paydown directed
to the senior most outstanding class of notes, as a result of
regular amortization.

The pool contains forty five assets totaling $59.8 million (32.7%
of the collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted
securities as of the trustee's September 8, 2016 report.  Six of
these assets (36.9% of the defaulted balance) are CDO, thirty one
assets (32.6%) are RMBS bonds, and seven assets (30.5%) are CMBS.
While there have been limited realized losses on the underlying
collateral to date, Moody's does expect moderate/high losses to
occur on the defaulted assets once they are realized.  While there
have been limited realized losses on the underlying collateral to
date, Moody's does expect moderate losses to occur on the defaulted
securities.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of the
expected loss in CRE 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 6631,
compared to 6157 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 (8.0% compared to 14.1% at last
review), A1-A3 (1.1% compared to 2.0% at last review), Baa1-Baa3
(8.6% compared to 4.4% at last review), Ba1-Ba3 (4.5% compared to
8.7% at last review), B1-B3 (1.9% compared to 4.8% at last review),
and Caa1-Ca/C (76.0% compared to 66.0% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.5 years, as compared to 3.0 years at
last review.  The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on
the underlying look-through collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 6.7%, as compared to 10.5% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100%, same as last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in July 2015.

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the rated
notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption could be
offset by a change in one or more of the other key parameter
assumptions.  The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes
in the ratings recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments.  Reducing the recovery rate of 100% of the
collateral pool by 5% would result in an average modeled rating
movement on the rated notes of zero to one 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%
would result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero notches upward (e.g., one notch up 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 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.


RAIT PREFERRED II: S&P Raises Rating on Class A-2 Notes to BB+
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class A-1R, A-1T, and
A-2 floating-rate notes from RAIT Preferred Funding II Ltd., a U.S.
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligations (CRE-CDO)
transaction.  Concurrently, S&P affirmed its ratings on eight other
classes from the same transaction.  The rating actions follow S&P's
review of the transaction's performance using data from the Sept.
11, 2016 trustee report.

The upgrades reflect the transaction's $205.35 million in
collective paydowns to the class A-1R and A-1T (pari passu) notes
since S&P's August 2014 rating actions.  Following paydowns, class
A-1R and A-1T are at 25.07% of the original issuance, down from
75.46% during S&P's last review.  The lower balances of the senior
notes improved the reported overcollateralization (O/C) ratios. For
instance, as per the September 2016 monthly report, the class A/B
O/C ratio is at 179.86%, up from 147.56% in the July 2014 trustee
report, which S&P used for its previous rating actions.

Though most of the assets of the underlying collateral are whole
loans, a significant portion of them have had modifications.
Consequently, though cash flows indicate a higher rating for most
of the tranches, S&P's analysis considered the above and also the
credit quality of the assets backing the notes.

The affirmations on the eight classes reflect S&P's view that
available credit support is consistent with the current rating
levels.

Because the transaction previously experienced subordinate debt
cancellation, S&P's ratings relied, in part, on a criteria
interpretation of its global CDO methodology that is applicable to
such situations.  This involves the application of an additional
rating stress, which is designed to assess the potential
creditworthiness without the support of interest or principal
diversion mechanisms linked to the outstanding subordinated
tranches.

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 will take rating actions as S&P
deems necessary.

RATINGS RAISED

RAIT Preferred Funding II Ltd.

                  Rating
Class         To          From

A-1R          A- (sf)     BBB (sf)
A-1T          A- (sf)     BBB (sf)
A-2           BB+ (sf)    B+ (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

RAIT Preferred Funding II Ltd.

Class         Rating

B             CCC+ (sf)
C             CCC+ (sf)
D             CCC+ (sf)
E             CCC (sf)
F             CCC (sf)
G             CCC- (sf)
H             CCC- (sf)
J             CCC- (sf)


RED RIVER: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class C and D notes
from Red River CLO Ltd.  S&P also removed these ratings from
CreditWatch, where it placed them with positive implications on
July 14, 2016.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its rating on the
class E notes from the same transaction, and removed them from
CreditWatch positive.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the July 2016 trustee report.

The upgrades reflect the transaction's $294.93 million of
collective paydowns to the class A, B, and C notes since S&P's
September 2014 rating actions.  These paydowns resulted in improved
reported overcollateralization (O/C) ratios since the August 2014
trustee report, which S&P used for its previous rating actions:

   -- The class C O/C ratio improved to 203.60% from 129.71%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio improved to 133.73% from 113.81%.
   -- The class E O/C ratio improved to 111.36% from 106.19%.

The collateral portfolio's credit quality has improved since S&P's
last rating actions.  Collateral obligations with ratings in the
'CCC' category have increased, with $13.36 million reported as of
the July 2016 trustee report, compared with $12.53 million reported
as of the August 2014 trustee report; however, the amount of
defaulted collateral in the portfolio has decreased to
$59.40 million from $67.55 million.  Although the principal balance
of defaulted obligations has declined since S&P's last rating
actions, the concentration of both 'CCC' and defaulted collateral
has increased as the assets have amortized.  Despite these
concentrations of 'CCC' and defaulted collateral, the transaction
has benefited from a drop in the weighted average life due to
underlying collateral's seasoning, with 1.44 years reported as of
the July 2016 trustee report, compared with 2.79 years reported as
of the August 2014 trustee report.

The transaction has significant exposure to long-dated assets
(assets maturing after the CLO's stated maturity).  According to
the July 2016 trustee report, the balance of collateral with a
maturity date after the transaction's stated maturity totaled
$13.77 million (6.13% of the portfolio).  S&P's analysis took into
account the potential market value risk and settlement-related risk
arising from the possible liquidation of the remaining securities
on the transaction's legal final maturity date.

The ratings on the class D and E notes are constrained at
'AA+ (sf)' and 'BB+ (sf)', respectively, by the application of the
largest obligor default test, a supplemental stress test included
as part of our corporate collateralized debt obligation criteria.
The top five largest obligors in the transaction currently make up
more than 27% of the portfolio's performing collateral balance.

The upgrades reflect the improved credit support at the prior
rating levels; the affirmation reflects S&P's view that the credit
support available is commensurate with the current rating levels.

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 these rating
actions.

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

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE
RED RIVER CLO Ltd.
                  Rating
Class         To          From
C             AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D             AA+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos

RATINGS AFFIRMED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE
RED RIVER CLO Ltd.
            
                 Rating
Class        To          From
E            BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos


SEQUOIA MORTGAGE 2016-3: Moody Rates Class B-3 Notes 'Ba1'
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to the
classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by
Sequoia Mortgage Trust (SEMT) 2016-3. The certificates are backed
by one pool of prime quality, first-lien mortgage loans. The assets
of the trust consist of 465 fully amortizing, fixed rate mortgage
loans, all of which have an original term to maturity of 30 years.
The borrowers in the pool have high FICO scores, significant equity
in their properties and liquid cash reserves.

The complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2016-3

   -- Cl. A-1, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-2, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-3, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-4, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-5, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-6, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)
  
   -- Cl. A-7, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-8, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-9, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-10, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-11, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-12, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-13, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-14, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-15, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-16, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-17, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-18, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-19, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-20, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-21, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-22, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-23, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-24, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO1, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO2, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO3, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO4, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO5, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO6, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO7, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO8, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO9, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO10, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO11, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO12, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO13, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO14, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO15, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO16, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO17, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO18, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO19, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO20, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO21, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO22, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO23, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO24, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-IO25, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. B-1, Assigned (P)A1 (sf)

   -- Cl. B-2, Assigned (P)Baa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. B-3, Assigned (P)Ba1 (sf)

   -- Cl. B-4, Assigned (P)B1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Summary Credit Analysis

Moody's expected cumulative net loss on the aggregate pool is 0.40%
in a base scenario and reaches 4.40% at a stress level consistent
with the Aaa ratings.

The Aaa MILAN CE, inclusive of concentration adjustments, for this
pool is 4.56%. Loan-level adjustments included: adjustments to
borrower probability of default for higher and lower borrower DTIs,
borrowers with multiple mortgaged properties, self-employed
borrowers, origination channels and at a pool level, for the
default risk of HOA properties in super lien states. The adjustment
to our Aaa stress loss above the model output also includes
adjustments related to aggregator and originators assessments. The
MILAN model is based on stressed trajectories of HPA, unemployment
rates and interest rates, at a monthly frequency over a ten year
period. The model combines loan-level characteristics with economic
drivers to determine the probability of default for each loan, and
hence for a portfolio as a whole. Severity is also calculated on a
loan-level basis. The pool loss level is then adjusted for
borrower, zip code, and MSA level concentrations.

Collateral Description

The SEMT 2016-3 transaction is a securitization of 465 first lien
residential mortgage loans, with an aggregate unpaid principal
balance of $343,156,644. There are 140 originators in the
transaction. 10.2% of the mortgage loans by outstanding principal
balance were originated by First Republic Bank and 7.3% of the
mortgage loans by outstanding principal balance were purchased by
RRAC from FHLB Chicago. The mortgage loans purchased by RRAC from
FHLB Chicago were originated by various participating financial
institution investors. None of the originators other than First
Republic Bank represents for more than 5.0% of the principal
balance of the loans in the pool. The loan-level review encompassed
credit underwriting, property value and regulatory compliance. In
addition, Redwood has agreed to backstop the rep and warranty
repurchase obligation of all originators other than First Republic
Bank (10.2% of the outstanding principal balance of the loans).

The loans were all aggregated by Redwood Residential Acquisition
Corporation (Redwood), which Moody's has assessed as an Above
Average aggregator of prime jumbo residential mortgages. There have
been no losses on Redwood-aggregated transactions that closed in
2010 and later, and delinquencies to date have also been very low.

Structural considerations

Similar to recent rated Sequoia transactions, in this transaction,
Redwood is adding a feature prohibiting the servicer, or securities
administrator, from advancing principal and interest to loans that
are 120 days or more delinquent. These loans on which principal and
interest advances are not made are called the Stop Advance Mortgage
Loans ("SAML"). The balance of the SAML will be removed from the
principal and interest distribution amounts calculations. Moody's
said, "We view the SAML concept as something that strengthens the
integrity of senior and subordination relationships in the
structure." Yet, in certain scenarios the SAML concept, as
implemented in this transaction, can lead to a reduction in
interest payment to certain tranches even when more subordinated
tranches are outstanding. The senior/subordination relationship
between tranches is strengthened as the removal SAML in the
calculation of the senior percentage amount, directs more principal
to the senior bonds and less to the subordinate bonds. Further,
this feature limits the amount of servicer advances that could
increase the loss severity on the liquidated loans and preserves
the subordination amount for the most senior bonds. On the other
hand, this feature can cause a reduction in the interest
distribution amount paid to the bonds; and if that were to happen
such a reduction in interest payment is unlikely to be recovered.
The final ratings on the bonds, which are expected loss ratings,
take into consideration our expected losses on the collateral and
the potential reduction in interest distributions to the bonds.
Furthermore, the likelihood that in particular the subordinate
tranches could potentially permanently lose some interest as a
result of this feature was considered.

Tail Risk & Subordination Floor

The transaction cash flows follow a shifting interest structure
that allows subordinated bonds to receive principal payments under
certain defined scenarios. Because a shifting interest structure
allows subordinated bonds to pay down over time as the loan pool
shrinks, senior bonds are exposed to increased performance
volatility, known as tail risk. The transaction provides for a
subordination floor of 1.65% of the closing pool balance, which
mitigates tail risk by protecting the senior bonds from eroding
credit enhancement over time.

Third-party Review and Reps & Warranties

Third party due diligence firms verified the accuracy of the
loan-level information the sponsor provided us.

One TPR firm reviewed 100% of the mortgage loans for credit,
property valuation, compliance and data integrity. Two other TPR
firms reviewed a sample of mortgage loans for property valuation
and data integrity. The custodian reviewed the mortgage files and
did not find any exceptions.

The third party review found that the majority of reviewed loans
were compliant with Redwood's underwriting guidelines and had no
valuation or regulatory defects. Most of the loans that were not
compliant with Redwood's underwriting guidelines had strong
compensating factors.

"Although the TPR report identified compliance-related exceptions,
including exceptions related to the TILA-RESPA Integrated
Disclosure (TRID) rule, we did not believe these to be material
because either the sponsor or originator corrected the errors or
the errors are of a type that would not likely lead to damages or
losses for the RMBS trust." Moody's said.

The originators and the seller have provided unambiguous
representations and warranties (R&Ws) including an unqualified
fraud R&W. There is provision for binding arbitration in the event
of dispute between investors and the R&W provider concerning R&W
breaches.

Trustee & Master Servicer

The transaction trustee is Wilmington Trust, National Association.
The paying agent and cash management functions will be performed by
Citibank, N.A. and the custodian functions will be performed by
Wells Fargo, N.A., rather than the trustee. In addition,
CitiMortgage, as Master Servicer, is responsible for servicer
oversight, and termination of servicers and for the appointment of
successor servicers. In addition, CitiMortgage is committed to act
as successor if no other successor servicer can be found.

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

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 mortgaged property securing an obligor's
promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends greatly on
the US macro economy and housing market. Other reasons for
worse-than-expected performance include poor servicing, error on
the part of transaction parties, inadequate transaction governance
and fraud.

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 mortgaged property securing an
obligor's promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends
greatly on the US macro economy and housing market.


SHACKLETON 2016-IX: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Shackleton
2016-IX CLO Ltd./Shackleton 2016-IX CLO LLC's $370.00 million
floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term
loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 10,
2016.  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 diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily
      of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term
      loans that are governed by collateral quality tests.  The
      credit enhancement provided through the subordination of
      cash flows, excess spread, and overcollateralization.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced team, which can affect
      the performance of the rated notes through collateral
      selection, ongoing portfolio management, and trading.  The
      transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Shackleton 2016-IX CLO Ltd./Shackleton 2016-IX CLO LLC

Class                 Rating          Amount
                                    (mil. $)
X                     AAA (sf)          2.00
A                     AAA (sf)        254.00
B                     AA (sf)          50.00
C (deferrable)        A (sf)           24.00
D (deferrable)        BBB (sf)         20.00
E (deferrable)        BB (sf)          20.00
Subordinated notes    NR               42.50

NR--Not rated.



VOYA CLO V: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class A-2, B, and C
notes from Voya CLO V Ltd.  S&P also removed these ratings from
CreditWatch, where it placed them with positive implications on
July 14, 2016.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the
class A-1a, A-1b, and D notes from the same transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the August 2016 trustee report.

The upgrades reflect the transaction's $167.50 million in paydowns
to the class A-1a notes since our June 2015 rating actions.  These
paydowns resulted in improved reported overcollateralization (O/C)
ratios since the May 2015 trustee report, which S&P used for its
previous rating actions:

   -- The class A O/C ratio improved to 145.30% from 123.20%.
   -- The class B O/C ratio improved to 126.50% from 114.50%.
   -- The class C O/C ratio improved to 114.50% from 108.30%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio improved to 109.50% from 105.60%.

On a standalone basis, the results of the cash flow analysis
indicated a higher rating on the class D notes.  However, given the
minimal cushion available at the higher rating level and the fact
that the tranche is at the bottom of the capital structure and
would therefore absorb losses first, S&P affirmed the class D notes
in order to offset future potential credit migration in the
underlying collateral.

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 these rating
actions.

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

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM WATCH POSITIVE

Voya CLO V Ltd.
                  Rating
Class         To          From
A-2           AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch POS
B             AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)/Watch POS
C             A+ (sf)     BBB (sf)/Watch POS

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Voya CLO V Ltd.
Class         Rating
A-1a          AAA (sf)
A-1b          AAA (sf)
D             BB+ (sf)


WALDORF ASTORIA 2016-BOCA: Fitch to Rate Class E Certs 'BB-sf'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on Waldorf Astoria Boca
Raton Trust 2016-BOCA (WABR 2016-BOCA) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2016-BOCA.

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

   -- $145,100,000 class A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $275,000,000a class X-CP 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $275,000,000a class X-NCP 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $50,500,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $37,400,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $42,000,000 class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $80,000,000 class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $75,000,000 class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

(a) Notional amount and interest-only.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of June 15, 2016.

The certificates represent the beneficial interest in a trust that
holds a two-year, floating-rate, interest-only $430 million
mortgage loan secured by the fee and leasehold interests in the
1,047-room Waldorf Astoria Boca Raton Resort & Club. The loan is
sponsored by the Blackstone Group, L.P. (Blackstone). The loan was
co-originated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (rated
'A+'/'F1+'/Stable Outlook) and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company
(rated 'A'/'F1'/Stable Outlook).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High Leverage on Full Debt Stack: The total debt package includes
mezzanine financing in the amount of $285 million that is not
included in the trust. Fitch's stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) and loan to value (LTV) for the full debt stack are 0.66x
and 165.5%, respectively. Fitch's DSCR and LTV for the trust
component of the debt are 1.10x and 99.5%.

Asset Quality: Fitch assigned the Waldorf Astoria Boca Raton Resort
and Club a property quality grade of A-'. The collateral has both
lakefront (Lake Boca Raton) and oceanfront (Atlantic Ocean) land.
Property amenities include: a full-service spa, three fitness
centers, 30 tennis courts, 16 food and beverage (F&B) outlets, two
18-hole golf courses, seven swimming pools including a FlowRider
wave simulator, a 32-slip marina and approximately 200,000 square
feet of indoor and outdoor meeting space.

Significant Capital Invested by Sponsor: The sponsor acquired the
property in 2004 and has invested $274.2 million ($261,886/key)
since acquisition. Completed renovations include: complete room
renovations at the Cloister, the Tower, and the Bungalows;
construction of the Boca Beach Club; upgrades to the Yacht Club
rooms; lobby modernization; F&B outlet improvements; and updating
the meeting facilities.

Non-traditional Hotel Income: For the trailing 12-month (TTM)
period ended April 2016, approximately $64.1 million of non-room
and non-F&B revenue was generated by the property, representing
29.6% of the property's total revenues. Ancillary revenue sources
include golf, spa, tennis, beach, marina and club fees.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch found that the 'AAAsf' class could withstand an approximate
72.8% decrease to the most recent actual net cash flow (NCF) prior
to experiencing $1 of loss to the 'AAAsf' rated class. Fitch
performed several stress scenarios in which the Fitch NCF was
stressed. Fitch determined that a 63.2% reduction in Fitch's
implied NCF would cause the notes to break even at a 1x debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR), based on the actual debt service.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings for class A and
found that a 21% decline in Fitch's implied NCF would result in a
one-category downgrade, while a 47% decline would result in a
downgrade to below investment grade.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

Fitch was provided with third-party due diligence information from
Ernst and Young, LLP. The third-party due diligence information was
provided on ABS Due Diligence Form-15E and focused on a comparison
and re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to the
mortgage loan and related mortgaged properties in the data file.
Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and the findings
did not have an impact on our analysis.



WESTLAKE AUTOMOBILE 2016-3: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Westlake
Automobile Receivables Trust 2016-3's $550.00 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2016-3.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 6,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 46.61%, 39.70%, 31.14%,
      24.04%, and 21.57% credit support for the class A, B, C, D,
      and E notes, respectively, based on stress cash flow
      scenarios (including excess spread).  These provide
      approximately 3.50x, 3.00x, 2.30x, 1.75x, and 1.50x,
      respectively, of S&P' 12.75%-13.25% expected cumulative net
      loss range.

   -- The transaction's ability to make timely interest and
      principal payments under stress cash flow modeling scenarios

      appropriate for the assigned preliminary ratings.

   -- S&P' expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, all else being equal, its ratings on the class A
      and B notes would not be lowered from the assigned
      preliminary ratings, S&P' ratings on the class C notes
      would remain within one rating category of the assigned
      preliminary ratings over one year, and S&P' ratings on the
      class D and E notes would remain within two rating
      categories of the assigned preliminary ratings, which is
      within the bounds of our credit stability criteria.

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

   -- The originator/servicer's long history in the
      subprime/specialty auto finance business.

   -- S&P' analysis of approximately 10 years (2006-2016) of
      static pool data on the company's lending programs.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Westlake Automobile Receivables Trust 2016-3

Class    Rating      Type           Interest            Amount
                                    rate(i)           (mil. $)
A-1      A-1+ (sf)   Senior         Fixed               144.00
A-2      AAA (sf)    Senior         Fixed/floating(ii)  212.90
B        AA (sf)     Subordinate    Fixed                52.66
C        A (sf)      Subordinate    Fixed                62.90
D        BBB (sf)    Subordinate    Fixed                55.59
E        BB (sf)     Subordinate    Fixed                21.95

(i)The interest rate for each class will be determined on the
pricing date.
(ii)The class A-2 notes will be split into fixed-rate class A-2-A
and floating-rate class A-2-B. The sizes of class A-2-A and A-2-B
will be determined at pricing, and class A-2-B will be a max of 50%
of the overall class.  The class A-2-B coupon will be expressed as
a spread tied to one-month LIBOR.



WFRBS COMMERCIAL 2013-C18: Fitch Affirms B Rating on Cl. F Certs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes in WFRBS Commercial Mortgage
Trust series 2013-C18 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
underlying collateral pool.  As of the September 2016 remittance,
the pool has experienced 2.2% collateral reduction since issuance.

There have been no delinquent or specially serviced loans since
issuance.  There are currently two loans on the servicer's
watchlist, representing 2.4% of the current pool balance.  Fitch
modelled losses of 3.2% for the remaining pool, which is in line
with Fitch's modelled loss at issuance.  Since the last rating
action, one loan has defeased.

The largest loan in the pool is Garden State Plaza (14.8% of the
pool).  The subject is a 2.2 million square foot (sf) super
regional mall in Paramus, NJ that is anchored by Macy's, Nordstrom,
Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor and J.C. Penney.  The mall was
originally built in 1957 and most recently renovated in 2013 at a
cost of $159 million.  Other major tenants include a 16-screen AMC
Loews, Forever 21, Best Buy and H&M.  The loan is interest-only for
the full term, and is pari-passu with a
$150 million note securitized in the RBSCF 2013-GSP transaction.
For the trailing 12-month (TTM) period ending March 31, 2016,
in-line sales were reported at $647 per square foot (psf).  This is
a decline from the $787 psf reported at issuance, but is still
considered strong.  Mall sales are strong despite being open only
six days a week, due to Bergen County Blue Laws prohibiting local
retailers from being open on Sundays.

The second largest loans loan is secured by a 1.3 million sf outlet
mall located 15 miles southwest of New York City.  Anchors include
Burlington Coat Factory, Forever 21, Cohoes Fashions and a
22-screen Loews Theatres.  The loan is interest-only for the full
term, and is one of three pari-passu notes with a whole loan
balance of $350 million.  Glimcher was the original property owner
before the company was acquired in 2014.  The subject is now
exclusively owned and operated by Simon Property Group and has been
rebranded as The Mills at Jersey Gardens.  Sales for the TTM period
ending April 30, 2016 were reported to be $857 psf for in-line
space.   Gross sales have exceeded $500 million annually since
2010.

The third largest loan, AmericasMart, is secured by a 7.1 million
sf wholesale trade market with approximately 4.6 million sf of
rentable area in four attached buildings.  The property is located
in the Atlanta CBD and was developed in phases, the first of which
was completed in 1961.  There are over 1,500 permanent tenants
occupying 3.5 million sf, and 1.1 million sf of temporary
exhibition space can be leased during trade shows.  As of May 2016,
the property was 99% leased.  The trust note, which is one of four
notes with a whole loan balance of $541 million, amortizes on a
25-year schedule.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

The pool has been paid down by 2.2% since issuance, and loans
representing 33.8% of the current balance are interest-only. Future
deleveraging of the pool could result in upgrades, while material
negative economic or asset level changes could result in
downgrades; however, the pool's performance has been stable since
issuance and Fitch does not foresee positive or negative ratings
migration in the near term.  The Rating Outlook for all classes
remains Stable.

Fitch has affirmed these classes as indicated:

   -- $25.2 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $103.3 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $140 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $170 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $201 million class A-5 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $63.7 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $70.1 million class A-S at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $773.3 million* class X-A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $72.7 million class B at 'AA-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $36.3 million class C at 'A-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $0 class PEX at 'A-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $66.2 million class D at 'BBB-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $19.5 million class E at 'BBsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $7.8 million class F at 'Bsf', Outlook Stable.

*Notional amount and interest-only.

The class A-S, B and C certificates may be exchanged for class PEX
certificates, and vice versa.  Fitch does not rate the class G
certificate.


[*] Moody's Hikes $49.7MM RMBS Issued 2002-2007
-----------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of nine tranches
from six transactions, backed by Alt-A and Option ARM RMBS loans,
issued by multiple issuers.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: CitiMortgage Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A3

   -- Cl. IIA-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan 29, 2016
      Upgraded to B1 (sf)

   Issuer: CitiMortgage Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A4

   -- Cl. IIA-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Feb 5, 2014
      Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

   Issuer: CitiMortgage Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A5

   -- Cl. IIA-1, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Aug 27, 2012
      Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

   Issuer: Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust  

   Series 2003-3

   -- Cl. III-A-1, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012
      Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. IV-A-1, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012
      Downgraded to Baa1 (sf)

   Issuer: Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2005-AR5

   -- Cl. IV-A-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2011

      Downgraded to Ca (sf)

   Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp 2002-21A

   -- Cl. B1-II, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 5, 2012
      Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. 2-A1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 5, 2012
      Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. 4-A1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 5, 2012
      Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions on CitiMortgage Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A4
Class IIA-1 and Structured Asset Securities Corp 2002-21A Classes
2-A1, 4-A1, and B1-II primarily reflect corrections to the
cash-flow models used by Moody's in rating these transactions. In
the prior modeling for CitiMortgage Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A4,
the transaction's senior percentage was calculated incorrectly
after the credit support depletion date, resulting in less cashflow
to Class IIA-1 than called for in the transaction documents. In the
prior modeling for Structured Asset Securities Corp 2002-21A, the
percentage of senior prepayments due to senior certificates was
calculated incorrectly and principal and interest funds due to
classes B1-I, B2-I, B1-II, and B2-II were distributed prior to
cross-collateralization payments to senior certificates in the
transaction, resulting in less funds distributed to senior
certificates than called for in the transaction documents. These
errors have now been corrected, and the rating actions reflect
these changes.

The rating actions are also a result of the recent performance of
the underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectation
on the pools. The rating upgrades are a result of the improving
performance of the related pools and an increase in credit
enhancement available to the bonds.

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 ratings:

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 5.0% in September 2016 from 5.1% in
September 2015. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 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 2016. Lower increases
than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $197.2MM of Subprime RMBS
-----------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 18 tranches
and downgraded the rating of one tranche issued from eight
transactions backed by Subprime RMBS loans.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
2004-FM1

  Cl. 2004-FM1-M1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec. 23,
   2015, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)
  Cl. 2004-FM1-M2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec. 23,
   2015, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
2004-HE4

  Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec. 23, 2015,
   Upgraded to B1 (sf)
  Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec. 23, 2015,
   Upgraded to B3 (sf)
  Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on March 15, 2011,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Argent Securities Inc., Series 2004-W1

  Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on March 18, 2011,
   Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)
  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec. 18, 2015,
   Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Issuer: Argent Securities Inc., Series 2004-W10

  Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec. 18, 2015,
   Upgraded to B2 (sf)
  Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec. 18, 2015,
   Upgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: GSAMP Trust 2004-AR1

  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb. 20, 2015,
   Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)
  Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec. 17, 2015,
   Upgraded to B1 (sf)
  Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec. 17, 2015,
   Upgraded to B3 (sf)
  Cl. M-5, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec. 17, 2015,
   Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)
  Cl. M-6, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec. 17, 2015,
   Upgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2003-B

  Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012,
   Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)
  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec. 17, 2015,
   Upgraded to B3 (sf)
  Cl. M-3, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Dec. 17, 2015,
   Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2004-1

  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Dec. 17, 2015,
   Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2004-3

  Cl. M-1, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 4, 2012,
   Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to the total credit
enhancement available to the bonds.  The rating downgrade is
primarily due to interest shortfalls incurred by the bond, which
are unlikely to be reimbursed.  The actions reflect the recent
performance of the underlying pools and Moody's updated loss
expectation on these pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

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

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 5.0% in September 2016 from 5.1% in
September 2015.

Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of 4.5% to 5.5% for
the 2016 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 2016.  Lower increases
than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures.  Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $52MM of RMBS Loans Issued in 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of nine
tranches and upgraded the ratings of eight tranches from five
transactions, backed by Prime Jumbo RMBS loans, issued by multiple
issuers.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Banc of America Mortgage 2004-10 Trust
  Cl. 1-A-1, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on April 25, 2013,

   Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)
  Cl. 1-A-3, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on April 25, 2013,

   Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)
  Cl. 1-A-4, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Feb. 10, 2015,
   Downgraded to B1 (sf)
  Cl. 1-A-5, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on April 25, 2013,

   Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)
  Cl. 1-A-9, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on April 25, 2013,

   Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: Banc of America Mortgage 2004-J Trust

  Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on March 5, 2014,
   Upgraded to B1 (sf)
  Cl. 1-A-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on March 5, 2014,
   Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: First Horizon Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-AR6

  Cl. I-A-1, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec. 11, 2015,
   Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)
  Cl. II-A-1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec. 11, 2015,

   Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)
  Cl. III-A-1, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug. 27,
   2013, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf)
  Cl. IV-A-1, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on April 18,
   2012, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2004-S2

  Cl. 1-B-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on April 29, 2011,
   Downgraded to B3 (sf)
  Cl. 1-B-2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan. 10, 2013,
   Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust MLCC 2004-HB1

  Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan. 4, 2013,
   Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)
  Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan. 4, 2013,
   Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)
  Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan. 4, 2013,
   Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)
  Cl. X-A, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan. 4, 2013,
   Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectation on the pools.  The
ratings downgraded from First Horizon Mortgage Pass-Through Trust
2004-AR6 are due to the weaker performance of the underlying
collateral and the erosion of enhancement available to the bonds.
The ratings downgraded from Banc of America Mortgage 2004-10 Trust
are due to the weaker performance of the underlying collateral and
credit enhancement available to the bonds compared to their
expected loss.  The ratings upgraded from Banc of America Mortgage
2004-J Trust and J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2004-S2 are a result of
the improving performance of the related pools and an increase in
credit enhancement available to the bonds.  The ratings upgraded
from Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust MLCC 2004-HB1 are a
result of the improving performance of the related pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

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

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 4.9% in August 2016 from 5.1% in
August 2015.  Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 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 2016.  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 Lowers Ratings on 88 Classes From 52 RMBS Transactions to D
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on 88 classes of mortgage
pass-through certificates from 52 U.S. residential mortgage-backed
securities (RMBS) transactions issued between 2001 and 2009 to
'D (sf)'.

The transactions in this review are backed by a mix of fixed- and
adjustable-rate mixed collateral mortgage loans, which are secured
primarily by first liens on one- to four-family residential
properties.  The downgrades reflect S&P's assessment of the
principal writedowns' impact on the affected classes during recent
remittance periods.  All but one of the classes were rated either
'CCC (sf)' or 'CC (sf)' before today's rating actions.  Class A-I
from RAMP Series 2004-SL3 Trust was previously rated 'B+ (sf)'.
S&P lowered the rating of the A-I tranche to 'D (sf)' because the
class reached its maturity date in August 2016 while still having
an outstanding balance.  S&P's ratings require the ultimate payment
of full principal by the maturity date.

Classes C-P from Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates WMALT Series 2005-3 Trust, 1-A-P from Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-7, and I-A-P from RALI Series 2007-QS4
Trust are principal-only (PO) strip classes, which receive
principal primarily from discount loans within the related
transaction.  When a discount loan takes a loss, the PO strip class
is allocated a loan-specific percentage of that loss. However,
because these PO classes are senior classes in the waterfall, they
are reimbursed from cash flows that would otherwise be paid to the
most junior classes.  These PO classes have incurred a loss on
their principal obligation.  But because the balances of all of the
subordinate classes in each respective structure have been reduced
to zero, S&P expects no future reimbursement from the cash flows
from each of the respective transactions.

The 88 defaulted classes consist of these:

   -- 34 from resecuritized real estate mortgage investment
      conduit transactions (38.64 %);
   -- 18 from prime jumbo transactions (20.45 %);
   -- 3 from alternative-A transactions (14.77 %);
   -- 12 from subprime transactions (13.64);
   -- Six from negative amortization transactions;
   -- One from a reperforming transaction;
   -- One from an outside-the-guidelines transaction;
   -- One from a document-deficient transaction;
   -- One from a closed-end second-lien transaction; and
   -- One from a home equity line of credit transaction.

All of the transactions in this review receive credit enhancement
from a combination of subordination, excess spread, and
overcollateralization (where applicable).

S&P will continue to monitor its ratings on securities that
experience principal writedowns, and S&P will take rating actions
as S&P considers appropriate according to its criteria.

                          ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

When determining a U.S. RMBS collateral pool's relative credit
quality, S&P's loss expectations stem, to a certain extent, from
its view of how the loans will behave under various economic
conditions.  S&P Global Ratings' baseline macroeconomic outlook
assumptions for variables that it believes could affect residential
mortgage performance are:

   -- An overall unemployment rate of 4.8% in 2016;
   -- Real GDP growth of 2.0% for 2016;
   -- The inflation rate will be 2.2% in 2016; and
   -- The 30-year fixed mortgage rate will average about 3.7% in
      2016.

S&P's outlook for RMBS is stable.  Although S&P views overall
housing fundamentals positively, it believes RMBS fundamentals
still hinge on additional factors, such as the ultimate fate of
modified loans, the propensity of servicers to advance on
delinquent loans, and liquidation timelines.

Under S&P's baseline economic assumptions, it expects RMBS
collateral quality to improve.  However, if the U.S. economy were
to become stressed in line with S&P Global Ratings' downside
forecast, S&P believes that U.S. RMBS credit quality would weaken.
S&P's downside scenario reflects these key assumptions:

   -- Total unemployment will tick up to 4.9% for 2016;
   -- Downward pressure causes GDP growth to fall to 1.8% in 2016;
   -- Home price momentum slows as potential buyers are not able
      to purchase property; and
   -- While the 30-year fixed mortgage rate remains a low 3.7% in
      2016, limited access to credit and pressure on home prices
      will largely prevent consumers from capitalizing on these
      rates.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

            http://bit.ly/2eduTRO



[*] S&P Retains 8 Ratings From 8 Transactions on CreditWatch Dev.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings said that its ratings on eight classes from six
home equity conversion mortgage (HECM) reverse mortgage
transactions and two classes from two reverse real estate mortgage
investment conduit (re-REMIC) transactions remain on CreditWatch
with developing implications.  The ratings from these transactions
were initially placed on CreditWatch with developing implications
on Oct. 16, 2015, based on S&P' review of the performance of
certain models used to estimate collateral cash flows for U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) backed by HECM
reverse mortgage loans.

Following the initial CreditWatch placements, S&P confirmed the
existence of various errors in the coding and documentation of the
relevant models.  Based on the discovery of these errors, S&P began
developing a new model that could be used to perform its reviews of
these transactions going forward.  The revised model has now been
tested and validated internally and has been approved for use per
our internal policies and procedures.

Within the next month, S&P expects to complete a review of the
relevant transactions, which will be performed using the revised
model and updated data.  Based on S&P' analysis from the review, it
will raise, lower, affirm, or withdraw the ratings as appropriate.

RATINGS REMAINING ON CREDITWATCH DEVELOPING

Mortgage Equity Conversion Asset Trust 2007-FF2
Class                Rating
A                    AA+ (sf)/Watch Dev

Mortgage Equity Conversion Asset Trust 2010-1
Class                Rating
A                    CCC (sf)/Watch Dev

Reverse Mortgage Loan Trust Series REV 2007-2
Class                Rating
A                    B- (sf)/Watch Dev

Riverview HECM Trust 2007-1
Class                Rating
A notes              A- (sf)/Watch Dev

Riverview Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2
Class                Rating
A-1 notes            AA+ (sf)/Watch Dev
A-2 notes            A- (sf)/Watch Dev

Riverview Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3
Class                Rating
A-1 notes            A- (sf)/Watch Dev
FR notes             A- (sf)/Watch Dev

Riverview HECM Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-4
Class                Rating
A                    A- (sf)/Watch Dev

Riverview HECM Pass-Through Certificates Series 2008-1
Class                Rating
A-5                  AA+ (sf)/Watch Dev



[*] S&P Takes Rating Actions on 59 Class From 45 RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 59 classes from 45 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2001 and 2007.  The review yielded 38 downgrades and five
affirmations.  S& removed three of the lowered ratings and all of
the affirmed ratings from CreditWatch, where it placed them with
negative implications on July 29, 2016 or Aug 15, 2016.  S& also
placed 16 ratings on CreditWatch with negative implications.

All of the transactions in this review are backed by a mix of
fixed- and adjustable-rate loans secured primarily by one- to
four-family residential properties.

A combination of subordination, overcollateralization (when
available), excess interest, and bond insurance (as applicable)
provide credit enhancement for all of the tranches in this review.
Where the bond insurer is no longer rated, S&P solely relied on the
underlying collateral's credit quality and the transaction
structure to derive the ratings.

            APPLICATION OF INTEREST SHORTFALL CRITERIA

In reviewing these ratings, S&P applied its interest shortfall
criteria as stated in "Structured Finance Temporary Interest
Shortfall Methodology," published Dec. 15, 2015, which impose a
maximum rating threshold on classes that have incurred interest
shortfalls resulting from credit or liquidity erosion.  In applying
the criteria, S&P looked to see if the applicable class received
additional compensation beyond the imputed interest due as direct
economic compensation for the delay in interest payment. In
instances where the class did not receive additional compensation
for outstanding interest shortfalls, S&P used the maximum length of
time until full interest is reimbursed as part of S&P' analysis.

In instances where the class received additional compensation for
outstanding interest shortfalls, S&P used its cash flow projections
in determining the likelihood that the shortfall would be
reimbursed under various scenarios.

The CreditWatch placements reflect that the trustee reports cited
interest shortfalls on the affected classes in recent remittance
periods, which could negatively affect S&P' ratings on those
classes.  After verifying these possible interest shortfalls, S&P
will take rating actions as it considers appropriate per its
criteria.

                            DOWNGRADES

The downgrades stem from applying S&P' interest shortfall criteria
and/or principal writedowns.  The downgrades include six ratings
that were lowered three or more notches.  One of the lowered
ratings remained at an investment-grade level; three of the lowered
ratings went from investment-grade to speculative-grade; and the
remaining 34 downgraded classes already had speculative-grade
ratings.  All the ratings lowered three or more notches received
additional compensation for outstanding interest shortfalls.  For
these classes, S& projected the transactions' cash flows to assess
the likelihood of the interest shortfalls' reimbursement.

S&P lowered two ratings to 'D (sf)' because of principal writedowns
incurred by these classes.

                            AFFIRMATIONS

S&P affirmed its ratings on five classes after it received
information to successfully assess the impact of interest
shortfalls on these classes.  Based on S&P' assessment the interest
shortfall rating caps for these securities were higher than their
current ratings.

                         ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

When determining a U.S. RMBS collateral pool's relative credit
quality, S&P' loss expectations stem, to a certain extent, from its
view of how the loans will behave under various economic
conditions.  S&P Global Ratings' baseline macroeconomic outlook
assumptions for variables that it believes could affect residential
mortgage performance are:

   -- An overall unemployment rate of 4.8% in 2016;
   -- Real GDP growth of 2.0% for 2016;
   -- The inflation rate will be 2.2% in 2016; and
   -- The 30-year fixed mortgage rate will average about 3.7% in
      2016.

S&P' outlook for RMBS is stable.  Although S&P views overall
housing fundamentals positively, it believes RMBS fundamentals
still hinge on additional factors, such as the ultimate fate of
modified loans, the propensity of servicers to advance on
delinquent loans, and liquidation timelines.

Under S&P' baseline economic assumptions, it expects RMBS
collateral quality to improve.  However, if the U.S. economy were
to become stressed in line with S&P Global Ratings' downside
forecast, it believes that U.S. RMBS credit quality would weaken.
S&P' downside scenario reflects these key assumptions:

   -- Total unemployment will tick up to 4.9% for 2016;
   -- Downward pressure causes GDP growth to fall to 1.8% in 2016;
   -- Home price momentum slows as potential buyers are not able
      to purchase property; and
   -- While the 30-year fixed mortgage rate remains a low 3.7% in
      2016, limited access to credit and pressure on home prices
      will largely prevent consumers from capitalizing on these
      rates.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

            http://bit.ly/2edtR8I



                            *********

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.

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 nation's bankruptcy courts.  The list
includes links to freely downloadable images of these small-dollar
petitions in Acrobat PDF format.

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.

TCR subscribers have free access to our on-line news archive.
Point your Web browser to http://TCRresources.bankrupt.com/and use
the e-mail address to which your TCR is delivered to login.

                            *********

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 2016.  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 ***