TCR_Public/161023.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 23, 2016, Vol. 20, No. 296

                            Headlines

A10 TERM 2013-2: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Class E Certificates
ANCHORAGE CAPITAL 2012-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. D-R Notes
ARES XL CLO: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class D Notes
ASCENTIUM EQUIPMENT 2016-2: Fitch to Rate Class E Notes BB
ASCENTIUM EQUIPMENT 2016-2: Moody's Gives Prov Ba1 Rating on E Debt

ATLAS SENIOR V: S&P Affirms BB- Rating on Class E Notes
AXIS EQUIPMENT: DBRS Assigns Prov BB Rating on Class E Notes
BANC OF AMERICA 2008-1: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class C Debt
BAYVIEW OPPORTUNITY 2016-CRT1: Fitch to Rate Class B-2 Notes 'B'
BNPP IP 2014-II: S&P Retains BB Rating on Class E Notes

CALIFORNIA STREET: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E-R Notes
CANYON CAPITAL 2012-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
CARLYLE GLOBAL 2012-4: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on E-R Notes
CATHEDRAL LAKE 2013: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class D Notes
CGBAM 2016-IMC: S&P Gives Prelim BB- Rating on Class E Certs

CITIGROUP 2016-P5: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Debt
CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL 2016-SMPL: S&P Rates Class E Certificates BB
COMM 2010-C1: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on Class F Notes
COMM 2014-CCRE20: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Class E Debt
COMM 2014-CCRE20: Fitch Affirms 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Certs

CPS AUTO 2016-D: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
CREDIT SUISSE 2007-C4: Moody's Hikes 2 Debt Tranches to B1
CRESTLINE DENALI XIV: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
CWABS: Moody's Hikes Ratings on 19 Tranches
CWABS: Moody's Takes Action on $2BB of RMBS Issued 2004-2006

CWALT INC 2004-30CB: Moody's Corrects 1-A-9 Debt Rating to Caa1
DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE 1998-C1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on X Debt
DRYDEN XXV: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
FLAGSHIP CREDIT 2016-4: DBRS Assigns (P)BB Rating on Class E Notes
FLAGSHIP CREDIT 2016-4: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on E Notes

FREMF 2015-K720: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on Class C Certs
GREENWICH CAPITAL 2007-GG11: Fitch Affirms D Rating on 12 Certs
INSITE WIRELESS 2013-1: Fitch Assigns BB- Rating on Class C Notes
JP MORGAN 2004-LN2: Moody's Lowers Rating on Cl. B Notes to B2
JP MORGAN 2004-LN2: S&P Lowers Rating on Class C Certs to B+

JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC15: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class A-M Certs
KODIAK CDO II: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class A-3 Notes
MADISON PARK X: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
MAGNETITE VII: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D-R Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2005-HQ7: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Cl. D Notes

MORGAN STANLEY 2007-HQ12: Fitch Cuts Cl. D Notes Rating to 'CCCsf'
MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ14: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Certs to B-
MORGAN STANLEY 2016-C31: Fitch to Rate Class X-E Debt 'BB-sf'
MSJP COMMERCIAL 2015-HAUL: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
NATIONSLINK FUNDING 1999-LTL-1: S&P Hikes Cl. F Debt Rating to B+

NEUBERGER BERMAN XXIII: Moody's Rates Class E Notes '(P)Ba3'
OCP CLO 2016-12: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D Notes
OCTAGON INVESTMENT 28: Moody's Gives Ba2 Rating on 2 Tranches
PPLUS TRUST RRD-1: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Tranches to 'B-'
PRESTIGE AUTO 2016-2: DBRS Assigns (P)BB Rating on Class E Notes

PRESTIGE AUTO 2016-2: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on Class E Notes
PRIMUS CLO II: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES 2000-C1: Moody’s Affirms C Rating on M Debt
RESOURCE CAPITAL 2015-CRE3: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Cl. E Debt
ROSEDALE LTD: Moody's Raises Ratings on $16.5MM Notes

SCG TRUST 2013-SRP1: S&P Affirms 'BB-' Rating on Class E Certs.
SDART 2016-3: Fitch Assigns BB Rating on Class E Notes
SDART 2016-3: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating on Class E Notes
STACR 2016-HQ: DBRS Assigns Prov. B Rating on Cl. M-3A Debt
STACR 2016-HQA4: Fitch to Rate 4 Tranches 'BB'

SYMPHONY CLO IX: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. E-R Certs
THL CREDIT 2012-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class E-R Notes
TIDEWATER AUTO 2016-A: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
TRU TRUST 2016-TOYS: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C26: S&P Lowers Rating on Cl. A-M Certs to BB+

WACHOVIA BANK 2007-C32: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on Cl. A-J Debt
WELLS FARGO 2016-C36: Fitch Assigns 'BB+sf' Rating on Cl. E-1 Debt
WELLS FARGO 2016-NXS6: Fitch Assigns B- Rating on Class F Certs
WESTLAKE AUTOMOBILE 2015-2: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Cl. E Debt
[*] Moody's Raises Ratings on $506MM Subprime RMBS Issued 2005-2007

[*] S&P Takes Rating Actions on 115 Classes From 27 RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Rating Actions on 14 RMBS Transactions

                            *********

A10 TERM 2013-2: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Class E Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. confirmed the following Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2013-2 issued by A10 Term Asset Financing
2013-2, LLC:

   -- Class A at AAA (sf)

   -- Class B at A (sf)

   -- Class C at BBB (sf)

   -- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)
  
   -- Class E at BB (sf)

   -- Class F at B (sf)

All trends are Stable with the exception of Class B, which has had
its trend changed to Positive from Stable.

The rating confirmations and trend change reflect the improvement
in performance of the majority of the loans remaining in the
transaction. The current pool consists of nine loans secured by
traditional commercial real estate assets, including office, retail
and industrial properties. According to the September 2016
remittance, there has been collateral reduction of 55.5% since
issuance as a result of full and partial loan repayment. The loans
benefit from low leverage on a per-unit basis, with the
weighted-average debt yield based on the most recently reported net
cash flow and outstanding trust balance at 11.9%, which is
relatively strong, given the pool consists of stabilizing assets.

The transaction is concentrated, as the largest loan, which
consists of a portfolio of nine cross-collateralized properties,
represents 25.0% of the current pool balance based on the
individual properties’ fully funded loan amounts. The largest
three and five loans represent 58.0% and 78.3% of the current pool
balance based on their fully funded loan amounts, respectively.
None of the loans in the pool have a maturity date prior to June 1,
2017, as several borrowers have exercised one-year extension
options for loans that had original maturity dates in 2016. The
largest and second largest loans are highlighted below.

The IPTV-B Aggregate Pool loan is secured by a portfolio of nine
properties located in six states. The nine individual loans are
cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted and are secured by a mix
of unanchored retail, office and industrial assets. At issuance,
the portfolio consisted of 25 individual properties; however, 16
assets have been released since issuance. Proceeds from the sale of
these 16 assets have reduced the balance of the portfolio loan by
$31.9 million, inclusive of an aggregate $6.8 million principal
reduction to the nine remaining loans.

The portfolio loan has a current remaining aggregate unpaid balance
(UPB) of $18.1 million, with an additional $2.8 million available
in future funding to facilitate future leasing costs. Eight of the
remaining nine loans have yet to stabilize and continue to struggle
in signing new tenants, primarily due to being located in secondary
markets and having poor accessibility and visibility. According to
Q1 2016 and Q2 2016 reporting, the weighted-average occupancy rate
for the remaining properties based on the outstanding loan balances
was 48.9%. The Plaza at Eastlake loan (current UPB of $5.7
million), which is secured by an office property in Chula Vista,
California, was 31.5% occupied and the Gateway East-West loan
(current UPB of $4.2 million), which is secured by an office
property in Oxon Hill, Maryland, was 56.9% occupied. Occupancy
rates at both buildings remain relatively unchanged since issuance.
While each remaining individual loan in the portfolio has a
respective future funding component available to facilitate future
leasing, based on the lack of leasing momentum since issuance, it
remains questionable whether the borrower will be able to sign new
tenants. Despite the ongoing leasing issues across the remaining
properties within the portfolio, the loan reported a
weighted-average debt yield of 7.7% based on annualized Q1 2016 and
Q2 2016 reporting. The loan also benefits from strong sponsorship
provided by a joint venture between Iron Point Partners and The
Baupost Group.

The Osceola Square Mall is secured by a 400,000 square foot (sf)
former regional mall in Kissimmee, Florida, that has been
transformed by leasing large spaces to non-traditional tenants to
cater to the local population. As of March 2016, the mall was 75.0%
occupied; however, the borrower is finalizing ten-year leases with
three tenants, which would increase occupancy to 96.0%. The tenants
would occupy large spaces ranging in size from 22,000 sf to 39,500
sf. Other large tenants at the property include Burlington Coat
Factory (Burlington), Florida Technical College, Ross Dress for
Less (Ross) and Cerebral Palsy Central Florida, which have lease
expirations in February 2018, August 2023, January 2022 and July
2025, respectively. The borrower is currently negotiating with
Burlington on a five- or ten-year lease renewal and recently came
to an agreement with Ross to extend its lease by five years. The
remaining future funding balance of $2.7 million will be released
in conjunction with the new leasing, which will increase the UPB to
$15.0 million from $12.3 million. The property is expected to
stabilize once the new tenants take occupancy of their respective
spaces. DBRS is awaiting confirmation from the servicer regarding
the move-in dates; however, it is expected to be well ahead of the
August 2017 loan maturity date.


ANCHORAGE CAPITAL 2012-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. D-R Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R,
C-R, and D-R notes from Anchorage Capital CLO 2012-1 Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by
Anchorage Capital Group.  S&P withdrew its ratings on the
transaction's original class A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes after they
were fully redeemed.

On the Oct. 13, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes were used to redeem the original
notes, as outlined in the transaction document provisions.
Therefore, S&P withdrew the ratings on the transaction's original
notes in line with their full redemption and assigned ratings to
the transaction's replacement notes.  The ratings reflect S&P's
opinion that the credit support available is commensurate with the
associated 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.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Anchorage Capital CLO 2012-1 Ltd.

Replacement class    Rating

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

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Anchorage Capital CLO 2012-1 Ltd.

Original class          Rating
                    To          From

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


ARES XL CLO: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to six classes of
notes issued by Ares XL CLO Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

  $424,900,000 Class A-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2027,
   Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

  $30,100,000 Class A-2 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2027,
   Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

  $75,600,000 Class A-3 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2027,
   Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

  $37,800,000 Class B Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due

   2027, Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

  $42,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due

   2027, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

  $33,600,000 Class D Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due

   2027, Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

The Class A-1 Notes, the Class A-2 Notes, the Class A-3 Notes, the
Class B Notes, the Class C 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.

Ares XL CLO is a managed cash flow CLO.  The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans.  At least 96% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 4% of the portfolio may consist of underlying assets that
are not senior secured loans.  The portfolio is approximately 70%
ramped as of the closing date.

Ares CLO Management II LLC 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 4.75 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 October 2016.

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

Par amount: $700,000,000
Diversity Score: 60
  Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2860
  Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.85%
  Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%
  Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.50%
  Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

Methodology Underlying 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:

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 2860 to 3289)
Rating Impact in Rating Notches
Class A-1 Notes: 0
Class A-2 Notes: -1
Class A-3 Notes: -2
Class B Notes: -2
Class C Notes: -1
Class D Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2860 to 3718)
Rating Impact in Rating Notches
Class A-1 Notes: 0
Class A-2 Notes: -1
Class A-3 Notes: -3
Class B Notes: -3
Class C Notes: -2
Class D Notes: -1


ASCENTIUM EQUIPMENT 2016-2: Fitch to Rate Class E Notes BB
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to assign these ratings and Outlooks to the
Ascentium Equipment Receivables 2016-2 Trust (ACER 2016-2) notes:

   -- $62,000,000 class A-1 notes 'F1+sf';
   -- $101,000,000 class A-2 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $60,007,000 class A-3 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $18,240,000 class B notes 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $15,110,000 class C notes 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $7,410,000 class D notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $7,695,000 class E notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

                       KEY RATING DRIVERS

Diversified Equipment Types: Equipment types are highly diversified
within 2016-2, with the highest concentration being medical
equipment, at 25.2%.  The next two largest concentrations are
titled equipment and display and storage, both at 14.7%.  This
diversification is consistent with Ascentium's' managed portfolio.

Weakening Asset Performance: The recent vintages (2012 - 2015)
within Ascentium's managed portfolio are demonstrating a higher
default pace relative to the majority of prior vintages.
Additionally, on a non-substituted basis, more recent ABS
transactions are also experiencing similar weakening trends.
Fitch's base case CGD proxy of 4.40% accounts for the higher
default pace.

Aggressive Managed Portfolio Growth: Ascentium's managed portfolio
has experienced significant growth since inception in mid-2011,
with annual originations increasing at a compound annual growth
rate of 30%, as of year-end 2015.  This has partially contributed
to the aforementioned weaker performance and the volatile default
performance related to certain new industries and/or equipment
types.

Sufficient Credit Enhancement: All classes benefit from a cash
reserve account and overcollateralization (OC).  Total initial hard
credit enhancement (CE) is 23.0%, 16.6%, 11.3%, 8.7% and 6.0% for
the class A, B, C D, and E notes, respectively.  The transaction
includes a 100% turbo feature, which will allow for CE to build as
the transaction amortizes.

Quality of Origination, Underwriting and Servicing: Ascentium has
demonstrated adequate abilities as originator, underwriter and
servicer as evidenced by historical delinquency and loss
performance of securitized trusts and the managed portfolio.

Integrity of Legal Structure: The legal structure of the
transaction should provide that a bankruptcy of Ascentium would not
impair the timeliness of payments on the securities.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults and loss
severity on defaulted receivables could produce CNL levels higher
than the base case and could result in potential rating actions on
the notes.  Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned
to ACER 2016-2 to increased CNL over the life of the transaction.
Fitch's analysis found that the transaction displays some
sensitivity to increased CNL, showing a potential downgrade of up
two rating categories under Fitch's severe (2.5x base case loss
scenario).


ASCENTIUM EQUIPMENT 2016-2: Moody's Gives Prov Ba1 Rating on E Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to the
notes to be issued by Ascentium Equipment Receivables 2016-2 Trust
(ACER 2016-2). This is the second transaction of the year for
Ascentium Capital LLC (Not rated). The notes will be backed by a
pool of small-ticket equipment used for commercial purposes in
physician offices, gas stations, hotels and restaurants, among
others.

The complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: Ascentium Equipment Receivables 2016-2 Trust

   -- Class A-2 Notes, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Class A-3 Notes, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

   -- Class B Notes, Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

   -- Class C Notes, Assigned (P)A1 (sf)

   -- Class D Notes, Assigned (P)Baa1 (sf)

   -- Class E Notes, Assigned (P)Ba1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings are based on the quality of the underlying equipment
contracts and its expected performance, the strength of the capital
structure, and the experience and expertise of DFS as the
servicer.

Moody's median cumulative net loss expectation for the ACER 2016-2
collateral pool is 2.50%. Moody's based its cumulative net loss
expectation for the ACER 2016-2 transaction on an analysis of the
credit quality of the underlying collateral; the historical
performance of similar collateral, including securitization
performance and managed portfolio performance; the ability of
Ascentium Capital LLC to perform the servicing functions; and
current expectations for the macroeconomic environment during the
life of the transaction.

At closing the Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D and Class E notes
benefit from 23.00%, 16.60%, 11.30%, 8.70% and 6.00%, of hard
credit enhancement respectively. Hard credit enhancement for the
notes consists of a combination of overcollateralization of 4.75%,
a 1.25% fully funded, non-declining reserve account and
subordination, except for the Class E notes which do not benefit
from subordination. The notes will also benefit from excess
spread.

PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGY

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating ABS Backed by Equipment Leases and Loans"
published in December 2015.

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

Up

Moody's could upgrade the notes if, given current expectations of
portfolio losses, levels of credit enhancement are consistent with
higher ratings. In sequential pay structures, such as the one in
this transaction, credit enhancement grows as a percentage of the
collateral balance as collections pay down senior notes.
Prepayments and interest collections directed toward note principal
payments will accelerate this build of enhancement. Moody's
expectation of pool losses could decline as a result of a lower
number of obligor defaults or appreciation in the value of the
equipment securing an obligor's promise of payment. Portfolio
losses also depend greatly on the US economy, the market for used
equipment, and changes in servicing practices.

Down

Moody's could downgrade the notes if, given current expectations of
portfolio losses, levels of credit enhancement are consistent with
lower ratings. Credit enhancement could decline if excess spread is
not sufficient to cover losses in a given month. Moody's
expectation of pool losses could rise as a result of a higher
number of obligor defaults or deterioration in the value of the
equipment securing an obligor's promise of payment. Portfolio
losses also depend greatly on the US economy, the market for used
equipment, and poor servicing. Other reasons for
worse-than-expected performance include error on the part of
transaction parties, inadequate transaction governance, and fraud


ATLAS SENIOR V: S&P Affirms BB- Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-R, and
C-R replacement notes from Atlas Senior Loan Fund V Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by
Crescent Capital Group L.P.  S&P withdrew its ratings on the
transaction's original class A, B, and C notes after they were
fully redeemed.  S&P also affirmed its ratings on the class D and E
notes, which were not part of the refinancing.

On the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
replacement note issuance were used to redeem the original notes,
as outlined in the transaction document provisions.   Therefore,
S&P withdrew the ratings on the transaction's original notes in
line with their full redemption and assigned ratings to the
transaction's replacement notes.  The ratings reflect S&P's opinion
that the credit support available is commensurate with the
associated rating levels.

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Atlas Senior Loan Fund V Ltd.
Replacement class    Rating         Amount (mil. $)
A-R                  AAA (sf)                310.50
B-R                  AA (sf)                  52.50
C-R                  A (sf)                   42.50

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Atlas Senior Loan Fund V Ltd.
                        Rating
Original class      To          From        Amount (mil. $)
A                   NR          AAA (sf)             310.50
B                   NR          AA (sf)               52.50
C                   NR          A (sf)                42.50

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Atlas Senior Loan Fund V Ltd.
Class                   Rating    Amount (mil. $)
D                       BBB (sf)            27.30
E                       BB- (sf)            26.70

UNAFFECTED CLASS

Atlas Senior Loan Fund V Ltd.
Class                   Rating    Amount (mil. $)
Subordinated notes      NR                  51.50

NR--Not rated.



AXIS EQUIPMENT: DBRS Assigns Prov BB Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Inc. assigned provisional ratings to the following Equipment
Contract Backed Notes, Series 2016-1 Notes to be issued by Axis
Equipment Finance Receivables IV LLC:

   -- $166,411,000, Series 2016-1, Class A Notes rated AAA (sf)

   -- $8,737,000, Series 2016-1, Class B Notes rated AA (sf)

   -- $6,977,000, Series 2016-1, Class C Notes rated A (sf)

   -- $8,822,000, Series 2016-1, Class D Notes rated BBB (sf)

   -- $5,662,000, Series 2016-1, Class E Notes rated BB (sf)

   -- $4,623,000, Series 2016-1, Class F Notes rated B (sf)

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

   -- Form and sufficiency of available credit enhancement and its

      ability to withstand the expected losses under various
      stressed cash flow modeling scenarios.

   -- While the structure allows for approximately three-month
      prefunding period, during which the acquisition by the
      Issuer of new contracts into the collateral pool will be
      permitted, the proposed concentration limits will mitigate
      the risk of material migration in the collateral pool’s
      composition or risk profile.

   -- DBRS deems Axis Capital, Inc. (Axis Capital) to be
      acceptable originator and servicer of equipment backed
      leases and loans with a backup servicer. In addition, Wells
      Fargo Bank, National Association, which is an experienced
      servicer of equipment lease backed securitizations, will be
      the backup servicer for the transaction.

   -- The Asset Pool primarily consists of essential use equipment

      with obligors accounting for less than 1% of the Asset Pool
      involved in the domestic oil and gas production sector. In
      addition, close to 89% of the Contracts in the collateral
      pool as of the September 30, 2016, were supported by
      personal guaranties with a weighted-average guarantor FICO
      score of 706. The vast majority of titled assets are
      financed under contracts where Axis Capital does not own
      such assets, which mitigates the risk that titled vehicles
      may be entangled in the bankruptcy estate of the originator.


BANC OF AMERICA 2008-1: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class C Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on ten classes
and downgraded the ratings on two classes in Banc of America
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2008-1 as:

  Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015,
   Affirmed Aaa (sf)
  Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015, Affirmed

   Aaa (sf)
  Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015, Affirmed

   Aa3 (sf)
  Cl. A-J, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015,
   Affirmed Baa3 (sf)
  Cl. B, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015, Affirmed
   Ba2 (sf)
  Cl. C, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015, Affirmed
   B1 (sf)
  Cl. D, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015, Affirmed
   B2 (sf)
  Cl. E, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015,
   Affirmed Caa2 (sf)
  Cl. F, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015,
   Affirmed Caa3 (sf)
  Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. XW, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec. 4, 2015, Affirmed
   Ba3 (sf)

                        RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on Classes E and F were downgraded due to higher
realized and anticipated losses from specially serviced and
troubled loans.

The ratings on the IO class, Class XW, was affirmed based on the
credit performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF)
of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 9.2% of the
current balance, compared to 8.0% at Moody's last review.  Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 12.8% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 12.0% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at:

   http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

              METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Approach to
Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December
2014.

                    DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model, which it
uses for both conduit and fusion transactions.  Credit enhancement
levels for conduit loans are driven by property type, Moody's
actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality grade (which
reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to estimate Moody's
value).  Moody's fuses the conduit results with the results of its
analysis of investment grade structured credit assessed loans and
any conduit loan that represents 10% or greater of the current pool
balance.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity.  Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances.  The credit neutral Herf score is 40.  The
pool has a Herf of 21, compared to 24 at Moody's last review.

                          DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the Oct. 11, 2016, distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 38% to $784 million
from $1.27 billion at securitization.  The certificates are
collateralized by 85 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 12% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 49% of
the pool.  Five loans, constituting 6% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

Twenty-seven loans, constituting 16% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist.  The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package.  As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Fourteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $90 million (for an average loss
severity of 58%).  Six loans, constituting 6% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing.  The largest specially serviced
loan is the 357 South Gulph and 444 Oxford Valley Loan
($17.2 million - 2.2% of the pool), which was originally secured by
two class B office properties, totaling over 106,000 square feet
(SF), located in King of Prussia and Langhorne Pennsylvania. The
loan transferred to special servicing in June 2012 for imminent
monetary default.  In July 2015, the special servicer disposed of
the 444 Oxford Valley property.  Proceeds from the sale, after
reimbursing the servicer for expenses and advances, were used to
pay down the loan.  The remaining property, 357 South Gulph,
supports the outstanding loan balance.  Moody's anticipates a
significant loss severity for this loan.

The remaining five specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types.  Moody's estimates an aggregate $30.5 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (61% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for eight poorly
performing loans, constituting 6% of the pool, and has estimated an
aggregate loss of $12.7 million (a 26% expected loss on average)
from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 88% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 70% of
the pool.  Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 102%, compared
to 99% at Moody's last review.  Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans,
and specially serviced and troubled loans.  Moody's net cash flow
(NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 13% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI).  Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.32X and 1.07X,
respectively, compared to 1.47X and 1.13X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service.  Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 30% of the pool balance.  The
largest loan is the 550 West Jackson Loan ($97.4 million -- 12.4%
of the pool), which is secured by a 401,000 SF office building
located in Chicago's West Loop submarket.  As of January 2016, the
property was 89% leased, unchanged from July 2015, and down from
93% in July 2013.  Lease representing approximately 12% of the net
rentable area (NRA) expire in 2017, with another 23% in 2018 and
25% in and 2019.  The loan matures in September 2017 and Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 124% and 0.76X, respectively, the same as
at the last review.

The second largest loan is the IBP Loan ($71.5 million -- 9.1% of
the pool), which represents a pari-passu interest in a
$97.9 million mortgage loan.  The loan is secured by seven office
buildings, totaling over 813,000 SF, located in Carrollton and
Plano, Texas.  The loan transferred to special servicing in 2012
due to the borrower requesting a modification.  The loan
transferred a second time in June 2014 for imminent default;
however, the loan was returned to the master servicer in February
2015.  As of June 2016, the properties were 80% leased, compared to
88% in March 2015.  A large tenant, approximately 28% of the NRA
vacated its space in August 2016.  The borrower has subsequently
signed a tenant that will take approximately 20% of the NRA.  The
loan matures in October 2017 and Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
132% and 0.80X, respectively, compared to 121% and 0.87X at the
last review.

The third largest loan is The Village at Cascade Station Loan
($69.0 million -- 8.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 392,000
SF outdoor retail center located in Portland, Oregon.  As of June
2016, the property was approximately 95% leased, the same as in
June 2015.  There is lease rollover risk in 2017, when leases
representing approximately 29% of the NRA will expire.  The loan
matures in March 2018 and Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 94% and
1.09X, compared to 91% and 1.13X at the last review.


BAYVIEW OPPORTUNITY 2016-CRT1: Fitch to Rate Class B-2 Notes 'B'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate Bayview Opportunity Master Fund IVb
Trust 2016-CRT1 (BOMFT 2016-CRT1) as:

   -- $63,840,000 class M-1 notes 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $54,265,000 class M-2 notes 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $25,536,000 class B-1 notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $13,965,000 class B-2 notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $63,840,000 class M-1X notional notes 'A-sf'; Outlook
      Stable;
   -- $54,265,000 class M-2X notional notes 'BBB-sf'; Outlook
      Stable

This class will not be rated by Fitch:

   -- $1,994,678 class B-3

BOMFT 2016-CRT1 is collateralized by 12 underlying securities from
GSE Credit Risk Transfer (CRT) transactions.  The underlying
securities include M2 classes from various Fannie Mae Connecticut
Avenue Securities (CAS) transactions and M3 classes from various
Freddie Mac Structured Agency Credit Risk (STACR) transactions.

The underlying securities are general unsecured obligations of
Fannie Mae ('AAA'/Outlook Stable) and Freddie Mac ('AAA'/Outlook
Stable) and are subject to the credit and principal payment risk of
a reference pool of certain residential mortgage loans held in
various Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac-guaranteed MBS.  All of the
underlying securities were issued between 2014 and 2015, and all
but one of the underlying transactions rely on a fixed tiered loss
severity schedule that is determined by the amount of cumulative
credit events in the reference pool when passing credit losses to
bondholders.

Fitch currently holds public ratings on eight of the 12 underlying
securities ranging from 'B+sf' to 'BB+sf'.  For unrated securities
that are not in Fitch-rated transactions, Fitch relies on publicly
available information in its credit analysis.

The 'A-sf' rating for the M-1 notes, the 'BBB-sf' rating on the M-2
notes, the 'BBsf' rating on the B-1 notes and the 'Bsf' rating for
the B-2 notes reflects credit enhancement (CE) sufficient to
protect against projected losses on the remaining underlying
reference pool balances of approximately 2.00%, 1.20%, 0.80% and
0.45%, respectively, when the projected reference pool losses are
weighted by the contributing balance of the underlying securities.
To help ensure rating stability on the new notes, the initial CE
provides protection one rating notch above Fitch's rating-stressed
projected losses.  For example, the M-1 notes ('A-sf') are
initially protected against Fitch's 'Asf' rating stress scenario
and the M-2 notes ('BBB-sf') are initially protected against
Fitch's 'BBBsf' rating stress scenario.

The CE and projected recovery for the rated notes in this
transaction were assessed by comparing the CE and class size for
each underlying security to Fitch's loss projections for the
related reference mortgage pools.  For example, a hypothetical
underlying security with CE of 2.00% and a class size of 1.00% is
assumed to recover 50% of its class principal balance in a rating
stress scenario with a 2.50% underlying reference pool loss.  The
total estimated principal recovery amount available to pay the
rated notes is the aggregated projected recovery of each underlying
security, weighted by its contributing balance.  Fitch believes
this is a conservative approach to estimating principal recovery
for the new rated classes, since it does not allow for any rating
benefit from the shorter remaining life of the M-1 and M-2 classes.
To the extent the new rated classes pay off in full before Fitch's
projected losses on the underlying reference pools are fully
realized, the classes will be able to sustain more severe stress
scenarios than their initial rating reflects.

Fitch's credit rating reflects the probability of ultimate recovery
of principal and the timely payment of bond interest up to the Net
WAC cap.  Fitch's credit analysis of BOMFT 2016-CRT1 focused
primarily on principal recovery due to the transaction's definition
of the Net WAC cap.  The Net WAC cap is defined as the interest
collected (not due) on the underlying securities, net of expenses.
In such a structure, interest shortfalls that can affect credit
ratings on the new classes are generally not possible, since
interest due is effectively defined as interest available.

However, the structure allows for the repayment of Net WAC cap
shortfalls to the M-1, M-2 and B-1 classes prior to paying interest
due to the B-2 class.  Consequently, interest shortfalls that can
affect credit ratings are possible for the B-2 class. Fitch
analysed scenarios that could result in interest shortfalls for the
B-2 class, focusing on the potential for large extraordinary
expenses after the coupon step-up date that could result in
interest collections being diverted to pay Net WAC cap shortfalls
to more senior classes than the B-2 class.  Fitch believes the risk
of interest shortfalls to the B-2 class is consistent with a 'Bsf'
credit rating due to mitigating factors such as the annual limit on
eligible extraordinary expenses and the margin between the coupon
on the underlying securities and the new rated classes.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

Performance to Date (Positive): All of the underlying reference
pools have performed well, incurring fewer than 5 bps of loss to
date.  The performance has been driven by high credit quality and
strong home price appreciation.  The remaining loans have
benefitted from an average of 20% home price appreciation since
origination.

Fixed Tiered Loss Severity Transactions (Positive): Eleven of the
12 underlying securities are from CRT transactions structured with
a fixed loss severity schedule that is based upon the percentage of
cumulative credit events.  This structure limits potential losses
to bondholders.  Further, as the transactions age with strong
performance, the potential for high loss severities becomes
increasingly less probable, even in high-stress rating scenarios.

Hard Maturity Date (Positive): All of the underlying transactions
are structured to a final legal maturity at which time the issuer
will repay the outstanding balance of the transaction in full.  The
issuers are currently rated 'AAA' by Fitch and therefore Fitch
considers the probability of repayment of any outstanding balances
at the maturity date to be a 'AAA' credit risk.  The final maturity
date for each transaction is either 10 years or 12.5 years after
issuance depending on whether it is a fixed loss severity
transaction or an actual loss transaction.  As the transactions
continue to season and approach the maturity date, the window in
which losses can be realized by the transaction decreases,
resulting in lower loss expectations on the remaining balances.
Fitch applies a reduction to its lifetime default expectations to
account for this, with the most seasoned transactions receiving the
largest benefit.

Sequential Payment Priority (Positive): Due to the sequential
payment priority among the non-senior classes in the underlying
transactions, the underlying securities have benefitted from an
increase in CE as a percentage of the underlying reference pool.  
Not Currently Receiving Principal (Negative): All but one of the
underlying securities are not currently receiving principal.
However, Fitch estimates, on average, the underlying securities are
likely to begin receiving principal within two years.

Class Thickness (Negative): The classes of the underlying
securities make up a relatively small percentage of the underlying
reference pool balance, with an average size between 2% and 3%. The
small class sizes relative to the CRTs' capital structure may
increase the potential volatility of recoveries in the event of a
default.  When considering the class thickness and recovery
volatility of the underlying securities, Fitch considered the size
of the class relative to the differences between projected
reference pool losses in increasingly stressful rating scenarios.
On average for the underlying securities, the difference between
the scenario that causes a dollar of principal writedown and a
scenario that results in a complete loss to the underlying security
is approximately two full rating categories.  Measured a different
way in terms of national home price decline, Fitch estimates the
difference between the scenarios that cause a dollar of loss and a
complete loss on the underlying securities is, on average, a 10%
further national home price decline, which Fitch believes is a
meaningful difference in macroeconomic scenarios. Additionally,
unlike recent vintage private label U.S. RMBS where a relatively
small number of loans can make up 2%-3% of a mortgage pool, the
same percentage represents thousands of loans in CRT transactions,
helping to mitigate idiosyncratic risk.

Receivership Risk Considered (Neutral): Under the Federal Housing
Finance Regulatory Reform Act, the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) must place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into receivership if
it determines that the government-sponsored enterprise's (GSE)
assets are less than its obligations for longer than 60 days
following the deadline of its SEC filing.  As receiver, FHFA could
repudiate any contract entered into by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac if
it is determined that such action would promote an orderly
administration of the GSE's affairs.  Fitch believes that the U.S.
government will continue to support both Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, as reflected in its current rating of the GSE.  However, if at
some point Fitch views the support as being reduced and
receivership likely, the rating of the GSEs could be downgraded,
and ratings on the notes for the underlying securities - and
ultimately this transaction -- could be affected.

                        CRITERIA APPLICATION

Although the transaction is not a Re-REMIC, since the underlying
securities are not REMIC classes, Fitch's 'U.S. RMBS Surveillance
and Re-REMIC Criteria' was considered due to the similarities in
transaction structure with Re-REMICs.

Fitch made two variations to the criteria for this transaction. The
first variation applies to which bonds are eligible for ratings in
new issue Re-REMICs.  While Fitch generally limits underlying bond
eligibility to senior bonds that are currently receiving principal
payments, Fitch believes there are sufficient mitigating factors to
provide ratings on these classes.  Such factors include the
sequential pay structure and a hard maturity date (in 100 months on
average), which is expected to mitigate tail risk common in U.S.
RMBS.  Additionally, performance to date on the reference pools has
been strong, with many rated classes indicating positive rating
pressure.  Finally, the issuers of the underlying assets (Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac) hold unique leverage in the residential
mortgage market, which is expected to help mitigate loan quality
weakness and operational risk.

The second variation from the above referenced criteria is in
relation to the application of Fitch's Portfolio Credit Model
(PCM).  The criteria state that Fitch will utilize a hybrid
approach between Fitch's RMBS and Structured Credit groups for
transactions backed by more than five non-distressed RMBS.  While
Fitch ensured the projected default probability of the underlying
securities was consistent with the PCM approach, Fitch relied on
bond-level analysis (rather than portfolio probabilities) to
estimate the recoveries of the underlying securities in the event
of a default.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's analysis includes rating stress scenarios from 'CCCsf' to
'AAAsf'.  The 'CCCsf' scenario is intended to be the most-likely
base-case scenario.  Rating scenarios above 'CCCsf' are
increasingly more stressful and less likely to occur.  Although
many variables are adjusted in the stress scenarios, the primary
driver of the loss scenarios is the home price forecast assumption.
In the 'Bsf' scenario, Fitch assumes home prices decline 10% below
their long-term sustainable level.  The home price decline
assumption is increased by 5% at each higher rating category up to
a 35% decline in the 'AAAsf' scenario.

Classes currently rated below 'Bsf' are at-risk to default at some
point in the future.  As default becomes more imminent, bonds
currently rated 'CCCsf' and 'CCsf' will migrate towards 'Csf' and
eventually 'Dsf'.

The ratings of bonds currently rated 'Bsf' or higher will be
sensitive to future mortgage borrower behavior, which historically
has been strongly correlated with home price movements.  Despite
recent positive trends, Fitch currently expects home prices to
decline in some regions before reaching a sustainable level.  While
Fitch's ratings reflect this home price view, the ratings of
outstanding classes may be subject to revision to the extent actual
home price and mortgage performance trends differ from those
currently projected by Fitch.


BNPP IP 2014-II: S&P Retains BB Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned a preliminary rating to the class A-R
replacement notes from BNPP IP CLO 2014-II Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by BNP
Paribas Asset Management Inc.

The replacement notes will be issued via a proposed supplemental
indenture and are expected to be issued at a lower spread over
LIBOR than that for the original notes.  The cash flow analysis
demonstrates, in S&P's view, that the replacement notes have
adequate credit enhancement available at the relevant rating
level.

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

The preliminary rating reflects S&P's opinion that the credit
support available is commensurate with the associated rating
level.

PRELIMINARY RATING ASSIGNED

BNPP IP CLO 2014-II Ltd.
Replacement class       Rating           Amount (mil. $)
A-R                     AAA (sf)                  222.25


RATINGS UNAFFECTED

BNPP IP CLO 2014-II Ltd.
Class                   Rating
B                       AA (sf)
C                       A (sf)
D                       BBB (sf)
E                       BB (sf)
Subordinated notes      NR

NR--Not rated.



CALIFORNIA STREET: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned ratings to the class A-R, B-R, C-R,
D-R, and E-R replacement notes from California Street CLO IX L.P.
(formerly known as Symphony CLO IX L.P.), a U.S. collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by Symphony Asset
Management LLC.  S&P withdrew its ratings on the transaction's
original class A, B, C, D, and E notes after they were fully
redeemed.

On the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
replacement note issuance were used to redeem the original notes,
as outlined in the transaction document provisions.  Therefore, S&P
withdrew the ratings on the transaction's original notes in line
with their full redemption and assigned ratings to the
transaction's replacement notes.  The ratings reflect S&P's opinion
that the credit support available is commensurate with the
associated rating levels.

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

California Street CLO IX L.P.
Replacement class       Rating
A-R                     AAA (sf)
B-R                     AA (sf)
C-R                     A (sf)
D-R                     BBB (sf)
E-R                     BB- (sf)

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

California Street CLO IX L.P.
Original class          Rating
                    To          From
A                   NR          AAA (sf)
B                   NR          AA+ (sf)
C                   NR          AA- (sf)
D                   NR          BBB+ (sf)
E                   NR          BB+ (sf)

NR--Not rated.


CANYON CAPITAL 2012-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-R,
C-R, D-R, and E-R notes from Canyon Capital CLO 2012-1 Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by Canyon
Capital Advisors LLC.  S&P withdrew its ratings on the class A,
B-1, B-2, C, D, and E notes, which were fully redeemed.

On the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes were used to redeem the original
notes as outlined in the transaction documents.  Therefore, S&P
withdrew its ratings on the original notes following their full
redemption, and S&P assigned ratings to the replacement notes.  The
ratings reflect S&P's opinion that the credit support available is
commensurate with the associated rating levels.

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

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

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

                           Rating
Original class       To              From
A                    NR              AAA (sf)
B-1                  NR              AA+ (sf)
B-2                  NR              AA+ (sf)
C                    NR              A+ (sf)
D                    NR              BBB (sf)
E                    NR              BB (sf)

NR--Not rated.


CARLYLE GLOBAL 2012-4: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on E-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Carlyle
Global Market Strategies CLO 2012-4 Ltd.'s $558.70 million
replacement notes.  This is a proposed refinancing of its December
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. 20, 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-R and E-R notes are expected to be
      issued at higher spreads than the original class A and E
      notes.

   -- The replacement class D-R notes are expected to be issued at

      a lower spread than the original class D notes.

   -- The replacement class B-R notes are expected to replace both

      class B-1 (float) and B-2 (fixed) notes.

   -- The replacement class C-1-R (float) and C-2-R (fixed) notes
      are expected to replace the class C note.

   -- The stated maturity/reinvestment period/non-call
      period/weighted average life test date will be extended.

   -- 99.10% of the underlying collateral obligations have credit
      ratings assigned by S&P Global Ratings.

   -- 94.01% of the underlying collateral obligations have
      recovery ratings issued by S&P Global Ratings.

Replacement issuances

Class                Amount    Interest        
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)        
A-R                  377.50    3ML plus 1.45
B-R                   80.50    3ML plus 1.90
C-1-R                 41.90    3ML plus 2.60
C-2-R                  5.00    3.90
D-R                   27.80    3ML plus 4.10
E-R                   26.00    3ML plus 7.51
Subordinated notes    61.55    N/A

Original notes

Class                Amount    Interest        
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)        
A                    377.50    3ML plus 1.30
B-1                   60.50    3ML plus 2.25
B-2                   20.00    3.5696
C                     46.90    3ML plus 3.25
D                     27.80    3ML plus 4.50
E                     26.00    3ML plus 5.50
Subordinated notes    61.547   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 S&P Global
Ratings.  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

Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2012-4 Ltd./Carlyle Global
Market
Strategies CLO 2012-4 LLC  
                                   Amount
Replacement class    Rating      (mil. $)
A-R                  AAA (sf)      377.50
B-R                  AA (sf)        80.50
C-1-R                A (sf)         41.90
C-2-R                A (sf)          5.00
D-R                  BBB (sf)       27.80
E-R                  BB (sf)        26.00
Subordinated notes   NR             61.55

NR--Not rated.


CATHEDRAL LAKE 2013: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its 'AAA (sf)' rating to the class
A-1-R replacement notes from Cathedral Lake CLO 2013 Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by Carlson
Capital L.P.  S&P withdrew its ratings on the transaction's
original class A-1A and A-1B notes after they were fully redeemed
from the A-1-R note proceeds.  S&P also affirmed its ratings on the
class A-2, B, C, and D notes, which were not part of the
refinancing.

On the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
replacement note issuance were used to redeem the original notes,
as outlined in the transaction document provisions.  Therefore, S&P
withdrew the ratings on the transaction's original notes in line
with their full redemption and assigned a rating to the
transaction's replacement notes.  The rating reflects S&P's opinion
that the credit support available is commensurate with the
associated rating level.

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Cathedral Lake CLO 2013 Ltd.
Replacement class       Rating
A-1-R                   AAA (sf)

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Cathedral Lake CLO 2013 Ltd.
Original class          Rating
                    To          From
A-1A                NR          AAA (sf)
A-1B                NR          AAA (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Cathedral Lake CLO 2013 Ltd.
Class                   Rating
A-2                     AA (sf)
B                       A (sf)
C                       BBB (sf)
D                       BB (sf)

NR--Not rated.


CGBAM 2016-IMC: S&P Gives Prelim BB- Rating on Class E Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to CGBAM
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-IMC's $610.0 million commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by one two-year, floating-rate commercial
mortgage loan totaling $610 million, with three one-year extension
options, secured by the fee and leasehold interests in 17 showroom
properties, 14 of which are located in High Point, N.C. and three
in Las Vegas..

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 14,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

CGBAM Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-IMC

Class       Rating          Amount ($)
A           AAA (sf)       247,650,000
B           AA- (sf)        86,100,000
C           A- (sf)         64,000,000
D           BBB- (sf)       84,500,000
E           BB- (sf)       127,750,000



CITIGROUP 2016-P5: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Debt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to various
classes of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P5, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-P5.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Lower Fitch Leverage: The pool's leverage statistics are lower than
those of other recent Fitch-rated, fixed-rate multiborrower
transactions. The pool's Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.21x and 105.8%,
respectively, are better than the YTD 2016 average Fitch DSCR and
LTV of 1.18x and 106.5%. Excluding credit-opinion loans, the pool's
Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.18x and 110.4%, respectively.
Comparatively, the YTD 2016 average DSCR and LTV of Fitch-rated
deals, excluding credit-opinion and co-op loans, are 1.14x and
110.2%, respectively.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Two loans representing 8.99%
of the pool are credit opinion loans. Easton Town Center (4.90%)
has an investment-grade credit opinion of 'A+sf*' on a stand-alone
basis. The loan is a 1.3 million-square foot (sf) shopping complex
that is 96.6% occupied by 212 tenants. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
(4.09%) has an investment-grade credit opinion of 'BBB-sf*' on a
stand-alone basis. The Vertex loan is secured by a 1.1 million-sf
office building that is 95.5% occupied by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, a
global biotechnology and pharmaceutical company.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 9.3% 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). Unanticipated further
declines in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and
loss severities on defaulted loans, and could result in potential
rating actions on the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to CGCMT
2016-P5 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 'A-sf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the senior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB-sf'
could result.

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

Fitch was provided with third-party due diligence information from
KPMG LLP. The third-party due diligence information was provided on
Form ABS Due Diligence-15E and 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 the findings did not have an impact on the analysis.

Fitch has assigned the following ratings:

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P5, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-P5

   -- $35,196,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $96,088,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $220,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $246,197,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $44,722,000 class A-AB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $720,185,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $41,284,000a class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $77,982,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $41,284,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
  
   -- $41,285,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $45,871,000b class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $45,871,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $21,789,000b class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.

a) Privately placed pursuant to Rule 144A.
b) Notional amount and interest-only.

Since Fitch issued its presale report on Sept. 26, 2016, the
balance of the class X-B certificates has decreased to $41,284,000
from $82,569,000. The rating to class X-B has changed to 'AA-sf'
from 'A-sf'. Fitch does not rate the $14,909,000 class F and
$32,110,420 class G certificates.


CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL 2016-SMPL: S&P Rates Class E Certificates BB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2016-SMPL's $540.0 million commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates.

The note issuance is one five-year, fixed-rate, interest-only
commercial mortgage loan totaling $540 million, secured by the fee
and leasehold interests in 102 self-storage facilities across 16
U.S. states and Puerto Rico.

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-SMPL
Class       Rating(i)           Amount ($)
A           AAA (sf)           301,305,000
X-CP        AAA (sf)       241,044,000(ii)
X-NCP       AAA (sf)       301,305,000(ii)
B           AA- (sf)            68,483,000
C           A- (sf)             43,140,000
D           BBB- (sf)           51,577,000
E           BB (sf)             75,495,000

(i)The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the Securities Act
of 1933.  
(ii)Notional balance.  The notional amount of the class X-CP
certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount of principal
distributions and realized losses allocated to a portion of the
class A certificates, and the notional amount of the class X-NCP
certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount of principal
distributions and realized losses allocated to the class A
certificates.


COMM 2010-C1: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 12 classes in
COMM 2010-C1 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2010-C1 as follows:

   -- Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. B, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. C, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

   -- Cl. G, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015 Upgraded

      to B1 (sf)

   -- Cl. XP-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. XS-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. XW-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. XW-B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 0.1% of the
current balance, compared to 0.6% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now less than 0.1% of
the original pooled balance, compared to 0.3% at the last review.

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December 2014, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single
Borrower CMBS" published in October 2015.

DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model, which it
uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Credit enhancement
levels for conduit loans are driven by property type, Moody's
actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality grade (which
reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to estimate Moody's
value). Moody's fuses the conduit results with the results of its
analysis of investment grade structured credit assessed loans and
any conduit loan that represents 10% or greater of the current pool
balance.

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

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the September 10, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 60% to $345 million
from $857 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 17 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 33% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 92% of
the pool.

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

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

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 100% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 67%, compared to
73% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans,
and specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow
(NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 12% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.73X and 1.50X,
respectively, compared to 1.60X and 1.38X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 55% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Fashion Outlets of Niagara Falls Loan ($112.7
million -- 32.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 525,663 square
foot (SF) fashion outlet center located in Niagara, New York. The
property is located approximately five miles east of the Niagara
Falls and the Canadian Border. As of June 2016, the property was
91% leased compared to 89% in December 2014. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 61% and 1.50X, respectively, compared to 72% and
1.28X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Harrison Loan ($39.7 million --
10.2% of the pool), which is secured by a retail property located
in New York, New York constructed in 2009. The property contains
approximately 90,000 SF of retail space. The property was 100%
leased as of June 2016 and benefits from longer term leases.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 74% and 1.21X, respectively,
compared to 75% and 1.19X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Auburn Mall Loan ($38.7 million --
11.2% of the pool), which is secured by a portion of a 588,000 SF
regional Simon mall located in Auburn, Massachusetts. The property
was anchored by Sears and Macy's, though Macy's owns its
improvements and is not included as part of the collateral. The
collateral is 84% occupied as of March 2016 due to the closing of a
Macy's Home Store in January 2016. Simon plans to demolish the
space and build a 51,000 SF free-standing movie theater complex
with twelve screens. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 65% and
1.58X, respectively, compared to 66% and 1.55X at the last review.



COMM 2014-CCRE20: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Class E Debt
---------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. confirmed the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2014-CCRE20 (the Certificates), issued by COMM
2014-CCRE20 Commercial Mortgage Trust as follows:

   -- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-SB at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-3 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-4 at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-A at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-B at AAA (sf)

   -- Class X-C 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-M 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 (low) (sf)

   -- Class F at B (high) (sf)

   -- Class G at B (low) (sf)

All trends are Stable. The Class PEZ certificates are exchangeable
with the Class A-M, Class B and Class C Certificates (and vice
versa).

The rating confirmations reflect the transaction’s current
performance, which remains in line with DBRS’s expectations at
issuance. The collateral consists of 64 fixed-rate loans secured by
101 commercial properties. As of the September 2016 remittance, the
pool had an aggregate outstanding balance of approximately $1,165.1
million, representing a collateral reduction of 1.5% since issuance
because of scheduled loan amortization. The pool benefits from a
high concentration of loans secured by properties in urban (51.6%
of the current pool) and suburban (33.7% of the current pool)
markets. The pool also has a concentration of hospitality
properties with ten loans, representing 27.8% of the current pool
balance, secured by full-service and limited-service hotels.
Overall, the hotel properties in the pool are performing well, with
weighted-average (WA) net cash flow (NCF) growth of 23.8% over the
DBRS underwritten (UW) figures as of the YE2015 reporting. As of
the September 2016 remittance, there are five loans comprising 5.7%
of the current pool on the servicer’s watchlist, with no loans in
special servicing. Only one of the watchlisted loans (Prospectus
ID#12, DoubleTree Beachwood) is being monitored for exhibited
performance declines, with the other four loans monitored for
upcoming rollover or recent storm damage.

The two largest loans in the pool, Gateway Center II (Prospectus
ID#1, 10.3% of the current pool) and InterContinental Miami
(Prospectus ID#2, 9.9% of the current trust) are performing well,
with WA NCF growth over the DBRS UW figures of 32.1% and 56.7%,
respectively. According to the March 2016 rent roll provided by the
servicer, Gateway Center II was 100% occupied with no scheduled
rollover until 2019. The property’s Sports Authority space did go
dark in 2015, but a replacement tenant in electronics and
appliances retailer, P.C. Richards, has assumed the lease.
InterContinental Miami, according to the June 2016 Smith Travel
Accommodations Report (STAR), is reporting a June 2016 trailing
12-month (T-12) occupancy rate of 88.6%, significantly higher than
its listed competitive set that reported a combined occupancy of
78.6%. DBRS has requested information on any impact from the spread
of the Zika virus in the area with regard to the subject’s
visitor traffic and the servicer’s response is pending as of the
date of this press release.

The Double Tree Beachwood loan (Prospectus ID#12, 2.35% of the
pool) is secured by a 404-key full-service hotel located in
Beachwood, Ohio, a Cleveland suburb situated approximately 13 miles
east of the downtown area. The property is situated in the Chagrin
Corridor office submarket, providing opportunity for the property
to benefit from commercial contracts with companies situated
nearby. In comparison with its competitive set, the property offers
the most amenities and the largest amount of meeting space. In
2013, the property was converted from a Hilton Hotel to a
DoubleTree by Hilton, with renovations to the lobby, business
center and restaurant completed in order to meet the new flag’s
brand standards. Over the next year, room renovations were also
completed, with all rooms on line by late 2014. At issuance, DBRS
noted the ongoing renovations and the opening of two new hotels in
the area, the Hotel Indigo Cleveland Beachwood and the Aloft
Beachwood, appeared to have had a negative impact on the
subject’s performance. It was expected that performance would
improve over the near term given the overall stability of the
market and local demand drivers.

Since issuance, however, performance has declined substantially.
The loan is reporting a YE2015 debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)
of 0.67 times (x), with estimated gross income down by 9.9% since
issuance. Income declines are the result of a decrease in both room
revenue (down 7.2% since issuance) and food and beverage revenue
(down 17.9% since issuance). The Q2 2016 DSCR showed some
improvement, with coverage at 0.77x. The July 2016 STAR report
showed a T-12 occupancy of 54.0%, with an average daily rate of
$105.85 and revenue per available room of $57.14. These figures
compare with the figures for the competitive set of 70.0%, $116.27
and $81.34, respectively, however, demonstrating the property
continues to lag the market for all metrics. According to updates
provided by the servicer, a new director of sales with local market
knowledge has been retained at the property to increase occupancy
and room revenue. It is also noteworthy that the loan benefits from
additional collateral in the form of a $1.5 million letter of
credit, to be held until the property reaches sustained performance
metrics as outlined in the loan documents. Given the sustained
performance decline since issuance, DBRS modeled this loan with a
significantly increased probability of default and will continue to
monitor closely for developments.


COMM 2014-CCRE20: Fitch Affirms 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 classes of Deutsche Bank Securities,
Inc.'s COMM 2014-CCRE20 commercial mortgage trust pass-through
certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
underlying collateral pool. As of the September 2016 distribution
date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has been paid down by
1.5% to $1.17 billion from $1.18 billion at issuance. The pool has
experienced no losses to date. De minimis interest shortfalls are
currently affecting the non-rated class H. There are no delinquent
or specially serviced loans. There are five loans on the servicer's
watch list (5.7%). Two loans (7.5% of the pool) have been
identified as Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOC's). The 10 largest loans
represent 54.1% of the total pool balance, and the top three loans
represent 27.2% of the total pool balance. In addition, nine loans
secured by hotel properties account for 27.9% of the pool including
five (24.5%) of the top-15 loans.

The largest FLOC is the Harwood Center loan (5.1% of the pool), the
fourth largest loan in the pool. The loan is collateralized by a
36-story, 723,963-sf office building and a nine- story parking
garage located in Dallas, TX. Per the year end (YE) 2015 OSAR, the
property net operating income (NOI) has declined 21.5% compared to
the issuer's underwritten NOI. According to the servicer, the
decline is due to a 21% increase in operating expenses, driven by
both general & administrative costs and janitorial expenses which
that were not accounted for in the issuer's underwriting.

The loan is structured with a 10-year term and is interest only for
the first three years. The NOI debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)
reported at 1.61x for year to date (YTD) March 2016 and 1.54x for
YE 2015, on an interest only basis. Amortization payments are
scheduled to begin in August 2017. Based on amortized payments and
the YE 2015 NOI, DSCR calculates to 1.18x, compared to 1.50x at
issuance. The loan remains current as of the September 2016 payment
date.

The second FLOC is the DoubleTree Beachwood loan (2.4%), which is
collateralized by a 404-key full service hotel located in
Beachwood, OH, approximately 10 miles east of Cleveland. The loan
is on the servicer's watch-list due to low DSCR. According to the
servicer, property performance has significantly declined since
issuance due to increased competition from newer properties or
recently renovated hotels. As a result occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR
have all declined. Per the STR report for TTM June 2016, occupancy
was 54%, with ADR at $105.85, and RevPAR at $57.14, compared to
61.7%, $105.11, and $64.85 at issuance. The property is well below
the competitive set, which reported 70% occupancy, $116.27 ADR, and
$81.34 RevPAR for TTM June 2016.

Per the servicers OSAR, the YE 2015 NOI was $1.2 million (or 39.5%)
below the issuer's underwritten NOI. The decline is directly
attributed to lower room revenues, as well as lower food & beverage
for YE 2015. The NOI DSCR was 0.93x for YE 2015, compared to 1.53x
at issuance. The interim YTD June 2016 DSCR was 1.02x. The loan
remains current as of the September 2016 payment date.

The largest loan of the pool (10.3%) is secured by Gateway Center
Phase II, a 602,164-sf retail power canter located in Brooklyn, NY.
Per the March 2016 rent roll, the property is 100% occupied with a
diverse mix of tenants with long- term leases. Leases for only
16.5% of the property net rentable area (NRA) expire prior to the
loan's maturity in September 2024, with the majority rolling in
2024 (15.3% NRA). The largest tenants, JC Penney (20.3% NRAof the
net rentable area [NRA]) and Shop Rite (14.9% NRA), have leases
that mature in August 2034 - ten10 years after the subject loan's
maturity. At issuance, the property also had a 13- year lease with
Sports Authority through January 2027. Sports Authority had filed
for bankruptcy, and as a result vacated the property. In 2016, PC
Richards purchased and assumed the subject lease through bankruptcy
court and is expected to be open in the fourth quarter.

The property's revenues had improved 7.6% from the issuers
underwriting, primarily due to higher reimbursement income and
burning of rent concessions. The revenue improvement was offset
by higher real estate taxes for YE 2015 ($2.7 million) compared to
issuance ($1.4 million). The real estate taxes at issuance were
based on the borrower's budget and factored in a 15-year tax
abatement. The servicer indicated that the filing for the exemption
was completed in 2016, and should be reflected going forward. The
NOI DSCR is stable, reporting at 1.75x for YE 2015, compared to
1.81x at issuance.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook for all classes remains Stable. Due to the
recent issuance of the transaction and stable performance, Fitch
does not foresee positive or negative ratings migration until a
material economic or asset-level event changes the transaction's
portfolio-level metrics.

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

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

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

   -- $39.6 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $99 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $79.1 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $275 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $317.7 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $873.9 million interest-only class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $63.6 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $57.7 million class B at 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $199.6 million class PEZ at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $78.3 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $136 million interest-only class X-B at 'A-sf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $60.6 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $60.6 million interest-only class X-C at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $26.6 million class E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $11.8 million class F at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

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

Class A-M, B and C certificates may be exchanged for class PEZ
certificates, and class PEZ certificates may be exchanged for class
A-M, B, and C certificates.


CPS AUTO 2016-D: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned 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 ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 55.77%, 48.67%, 39.56%,
      30.73%, and 24.94% 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 it expected net loss level, the ratings on the class A

      and B notes will not decline by more than one rating
      category during the first year, and the 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's credit stability criteria.

   -- The 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 rated

      notes under S&P's stressed cash flow modeling scenarios,
      which S&P believes is appropriate for the assigned ratings.

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2016-D

Class   Rating     Type          Interest          Amount
                                 rate            (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



CREDIT SUISSE 2007-C4: Moody's Hikes 2 Debt Tranches to B1
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on seven classes
and upgraded the ratings on seven classes in Credit Suisse
Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-C4 as follows:

   -- Cl. A-1-A, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015
      Affirmed Aa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015
      Affirmed Aa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-1-AM, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015

      Affirmed Ba1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-M, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015
      Affirmed Ba1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-1-AJ, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015
      Affirmed B3 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-J, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015
      Affirmed B3 (sf)

   -- Cl. B, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015
      Affirmed Caa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. C, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015
      Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. D, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015 Affirmed
      Ca (sf)

   -- Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015 Downgraded

      to C (sf)

   -- Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015 Downgraded

      to C (sf)

   -- Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015 Downgraded

      to C (sf)

   -- Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015 Affirmed C

      (sf)

   -- Cl. A-X, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Dec 3, 2015
      Affirmed Ca (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the P&I classes, Classes A-1-A through A-M and B
were upgraded primarily due to an increase in credit support since
Moody's last review, resulting from paydowns and amortization, as
well as Moody's expectation of additional increases in credit
support resulting from the payoff of loans approaching maturity
that are well positioned for refinance. The pool has paid down by
5% since Moody's last review. In addition, loans constituting 27%
of the pool that have debt yields exceeding 10% are scheduled to
mature within the next 12 months.

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

The rating on the IO class, Class A-X was affirmed because the
class does not, nor is expected to receive monthly interest
payments.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 10.6% of the
current balance, compared to 12.8% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 12.3% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 13.0% at the last review.

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Approach to
Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December
2014.

DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model, which it
uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Credit enhancement
levels for conduit loans are driven by property type, Moody's
actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality grade (which
reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to estimate Moody's
value). Moody's fuses the conduit results with the results of its
analysis of investment grade structured credit assessed loans and
any conduit loan that represents 10% or greater of the current pool
balance.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 38, compared to 43 at Moody's last review.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the September 16, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 53% to $974 million
from $2.08 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 145 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 7% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 37% of
the pool. Eleven loans, constituting 5% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

Fifty loans, constituting 35% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Forty eight loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $152 million (for an average loss
severity of 34%). Eight loans, constituting 11% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Lakeview Plaza Loan ($31.2 million -- 3.2% of the pool),
which is secured by a 185,000 square foot (SF) grocery anchored
retail center in Brewster, New York. This loan transferred to
special servicing in January 2014 due to monetary default. The
special servicer is actively working to lease up space at the
property and may pursue a foreclosure sale.

The remaining seven specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $54.8 million
loss for the specially serviced loans (50% expected loss on
average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 20 poorly
performing loans, constituting 13% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $25 million (a 20% expected loss based on a
51% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 92% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 75% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 104%, compared to
105% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans,
and specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow
(NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 9% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.28X and 1.01X,
respectively, compared to 1.25X and 0.98X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 19% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Meyberry House Loan ($90.0 million -- 9.3% of
the pool), which is secured by a 180-unit apartment building
located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in New York City. In
addition to the first mortgage loan, there is a $34 million
mezzanine loan held outside the trust. The loan is currently on the
watchlist due to a low DSCR. As of June 2016, the property was 96%
leased compared to 98% at last review. Moody's analysis of this
loan is based on a floor value. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
125% and 0.65X, respectively, the same as at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Hamburg Trust Portfolio Loan ($68.1
million -- 7.0% of the pool), which is secured by five
cross-collaterized and cross-default multifamily properties located
in Florida (2 properties) and Texas (3 properties). As of December
2015, the portfolio was 92% leased, the same as at last review.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 101% and 0.91X, respectively,
compared to 107% and 0.86X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Stone Lake Apartment Homes Loan
($26.8 million -- 2.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 334-unit
multifamily complex built in 2006 in Grand Prairie, Texas situated
between Fort Worth and Dallas. Performance has remained stable
since securitization. The property was 96% leased as of June 2016,
compared to 99% at last review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
100% and 0.92X, respectively, compared to 107% and 0.86X at the
last review.


CRESTLINE DENALI XIV: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Crestline Denali CLO XIV, Ltd. (the "Issuer" or
"Crestline Denali CLO XIV").

Moody's rating action is as follows:

   -- US$225,250,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
      due 2028 (the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
      Aaa (sf)

   -- US$42,875,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due

      2028 (the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2
      (sf)

   -- US$20,350,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating
      Rate Notes due 2028 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating

      Assigned A2 (sf)

   -- US$19,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating
      Rate Notes due 2028 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating
  
      Assigned Baa3 (sf)

   -- US$17,500,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes

      due 2028 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
      Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Crestline Denali CLO XIV is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued
notes will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first
lien senior secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the
portfolio must consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible
investments, and up to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans, unsecured loans and bonds. The portfolio is required to
be at least 82% ramped as of the closing date.

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

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in October 2016.

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

   -- Par amount: $350,000,000

   -- Diversity Score: 65

   -- Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2821

   -- Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.80%

   -- Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

   -- Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

   -- Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in 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:

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 2821 to 3244)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A Notes: 0

   -- Class B Notes: -1

   -- Class C Notes: -2

   -- Class D Notes: -1

   -- Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2821 to 3667)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A Notes: -1

   -- Class B Notes: -3

   -- Class C Notes: -3

   -- Class D Notes: -2

   -- Class E Notes: -1


CWABS: Moody's Hikes Ratings on 19 Tranches
-------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 19 tranches,
confirmed the rating of five tranches, and assigned a rating to one
tranche from eight transactions issued by CWABS and backed by
Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-1
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-2
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)
  Cl. M-2, Assigned to C (sf); previously on May 7, 2014, WR (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-3
  Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-5
  Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-6
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-BC1
  Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on March 25, 2009,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-BC2
  Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-BC3
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (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.

The rating confirmations are primarily due to the low current
overall levels of credit enhancement available to the bonds despite
settlement funds received by those transactions.

The assignment of rating to the Class M-2 from CWABS Asset-Backed
Certificates Trust 2007-2 reflects the fact that the prior rating
had been withdrawn as the tranche was previously written down due
to losses; 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 22, 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.


CWABS: Moody's Takes Action on $2BB of RMBS Issued 2004-2006
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 16 tranches,
confirmed the rating of 9 tranches, and assigned ratings to 5
tranches from 8 transactions issued by CWABS, backed by Subprime
mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-20
  Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-21
  Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)
  Cl. M-2, Assigned to C (sf); previously on Feb. 24, 2014, WR
   (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-22
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-23
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)
  Cl. M-2, Assigned to C (sf); previously on Nov. 25, 2014,
   WR (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-24
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-25
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-26
  Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on April 14, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-9
  Cl. AF-5, Confirmed at A1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   A1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. AF-6, Confirmed at Aa3 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Aa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. MF-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. MF-5, Assigned to C (sf); previously on May 10, 2016,
   WR (sf)
  Cl. MV-2, Confirmed at Ba1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. MV-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on July 22, 2016,
   Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade
  Cl. MV-6, Assigned to C (sf); previously on May 7, 2014,
   WR (sf)
  Cl. MV-7, Assigned to C (sf); previously on Nov. 6, 2013,
   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.

The rating confirmations are primarily due to the overall levels of
credit enhancement.  The rating confirmations of Class AF-5, Class
AF-6 and Class MV-2 of CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2004-9 are primarily due to the risk of future interest
shortfalls.

The assignment of ratings reflect the fact that the prior ratings
had been withdrawn as the tranches were previously written down due
to losses, but the tranches have since been partially written back
up due to the settlement proceeds.  The assigned ratings reflect
their reinstated balances.

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 Corrects 1-A-9 Debt Rating to Caa1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's has corrected the rating of CWALT, Inc. Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-30CB, Cl. 1-A-9 to Caa1 from
Baa1.  Due to an internal administrative error, this rating was
inadvertently upgraded to Baa1 from Ca on Oct. 7 2016.

In addition, Moody's has corrected the Oct. 7, 2016 Press Release
as:

In the debt list, under the issuer CWALT, Inc. Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-30CB, the third line was
changed to:

  Cl. 1-A-9, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
   Ca(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade


DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE 1998-C1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on X Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating on one
interest-only class in Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving
Corporation 1998-C1 as:

  Cl. X, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec. 10, 2015, Affirmed

   Caa3 (sf)

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.3% of the
current balance, compared to 1.4% at Moody's last review.  Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.1% of the original
pooled balance, the same as at the last review.  Moody's provides a
current list of base expected losses for conduit and fusion CMBS
transactions on moodys.com at:

   http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATING:

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

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

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

              METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Approach
to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower CMBS"
published in October 2015.

                     DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's analysis used the excel-based Large Loan Model.  The large
loan model derives credit enhancement levels based on an
aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds derived from Moody's
loan-level LTV ratios.  Major adjustments to determining proceeds
include leverage, loan structure and property type.  Moody's also
further adjusts these aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits
associated with loan level diversity and other concentrations and
correlations.

                          DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the Sept. 15, 2016, distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99% to
$11.4 million from $1.82 billion at securitization.  The
certificates are collateralized by seven mortgage loans ranging in
size from 2% to 55% of the pool.  One loan, constituting 4% of the
pool, has defeased and is secured by US government securities.

Two loans, constituting 17% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist.  The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package.  As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Fifty-six loans have been liquidated from the pool at a loss,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $93 million (for an
average loss severity of 43%).  One loan, constituting 19% of the
pool, is currently in special servicing.  The largest specially
serviced loan is the North Main Place Loan ($2.2 million -- 19.4%
of the pool), which is secured by a 61,000 square foot (SF) retail
center located in High Point, North Carolina.  The loan transferred
to special servicing in November 2012, and the property became real
estate owned (REO) in May 2013.  The property was 100% leased as of
July 2016, compared to 59% leased as of June 2015.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool and partial year 2016 operating results for 95% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 56%, compared to 61% at
Moody's last review.  Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans.  Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 41% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI).  Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.10X and 2.34X,
respectively, compared to 1.06X and 2.05X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service.  Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 73% of the pool balance.  The
largest loan is the Homebase Brea Union Plaza Loan ($6.3 million --
55.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 110,000 SF anchored
retail property located in Brea, California.  The property is 100%
leased to Home Depot.  The loan benefits from amortization.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 64% and 1.53X, respectively,
compared to 68% and 1.43X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the K-Mart Des Moines Loan ($1.75
million -- 15.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 106,000 SF
retail property located in Des Moines, Iowa.  The property is 100%
occupied by a Kmart.  This loan benefits from a full amortization
structure.  Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 42% and 2.58X,
respectively, compared to 53% and 2.05X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Forest Hills Care Center Loan
($268,786 -- 2.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 100-bed
skilled nursing facility in Forest Hills, New York.  Occupancy as
of March 2016 was 92%.  This property benefits from a full
amortization structure.  Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 11% and
13.60X, respectively, compared to 17% and 8.85X at the last review.


DRYDEN XXV: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-1-R,
B-2-R, and C-R senior secured floating-rate replacement notes from
Dryden XXV Senior Loan Fund, a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
originally issued in 2012.  S&P withdrew its ratings on the class
A, B-1, B-2, and C notes from this transaction after they were
fully redeemed on the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date.  In
addition, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class D and E notes.

On the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-R, B-1-R, B-2-R, and C-R replacement note issuances were used to
redeem the original class A, B-1, B-2, and C notes as outlined in
the transaction document provisions.  Therefore, S&P withdrew its
ratings on the original notes in line with their full redemption,
and S&P assigned ratings to the replacement notes.  In addition,
S&P affirmed its ratings on the class D and E notes, which were not
refinanced and therefore unaffected by the refinancing.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in the August
2016 trustee report, to estimate future performance.  In line with
S&P's criteria, our 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.

On a standalone basis, the results of the cash flow analysis
indicate a lower rating on class E than its current rating level.
S&P believes that as the transaction enters its amortization period
following the end of its reinvestment period (scheduled to end
January 2017), it may begin to pay down the rated notes
sequentially.  If all else remains equal, the paydowns will begin
to increase the overcollateralization levels.  In addition, the
transaction currently has minimal exposure to 'CCC' rated
collateral obligations, has zero exposure to long-dated assets
(i.e., assets maturing after the CLO's stated maturity), and has
had a decline in defaulted collateral since S&P's June 2016 rating
actions.  Therefore, S&P believes it is not currently exposed to
large risks that would impair the current rating on the notes.  In
line with this, S&P has affirmed the rating.

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

   -- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated
      industry classifications as outlined in S&P's August 2016
      CLO criteria update;

   -- Amend the definitions of "additional collateral management
      fee" and "internal rate of return" (and its related
      threshold in the payment priority); and

   -- Limit any further refinancing of the replacement notes
      unless certain conditions are met.

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

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Dryden XXV Senior Loan Fund

Replacement class      Rating             Amount
                                        (mil. $)
A-R                    AAA (sf)           386.40
B-1-R                  AA (sf)             46.00
B-2-R                  AA (sf)             23.00
C-R                    A (sf)              48.00
Subordinated notes     NR                  66.00

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Dryden XXV Senior Loan Fund
                           Rating
Original class       To              From
A                    NR              AAA (sf)
B-1                  NR              AA (sf)
B-2                  NR              AA (sf)
C                    NR              A (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Dryden XXV Senior Loan Fund

Class                Rating
D                    BBB (sf)
E                    BB (sf)

NR--Not rated.


FLAGSHIP CREDIT 2016-4: DBRS Assigns (P)BB Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. assigned provisional ratings to the following classes
issued by Flagship Credit Auto Trust 2016-4:

   -- $155,570,000 Series 2016-4, Class A-1 at AAA (sf)

   -- $52,590,000 Series 2016-4, Class A-2 at AAA (sf)

   -- $41,980,000 Series 2016-4, Class B at AA (sf)

   -- $43,370,000 Series 2016-4, Class C at A (sf)

   -- $31,750,000 Series 2016-4, Class D at BBB (sf)

   -- $14,740,000 Series 2016-4, Class E at BB (sf)

The provisional 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.

   -- Credit enhancement is in the form of overcollateralization
      (OC), subordination, amounts held in the reserve fund and
      excess spread. Credit enhancement levels are sufficient to
      support the DBRS-projected expected cumulative net loss
      assumption 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 the payment of principal by the legal final
      maturity date.

   -- The strength of the combined organization after the merger
      of Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC (Flagship or the Company)
      and CarFinance Capital LLC.

   -- DBRS believes the merger of the two companies provides
      synergies that make the combined company more financially
      stable and competitive.

   -- The capabilities of Flagship with regard to originations,
      underwriting and servicing.

   -- DBRS has performed an operational review of Flagship and
      considers the entity to be an acceptable originator and
      servicer of subprime automobile loan contracts with an
      acceptable back-up servicer.

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

   -- DBRS used a proxy analysis in its development of an expected

      loss.

   -- A limited amount of performance data was available for the
      Company’s current originations mix.

   -- A combination of Company-provided performance data and
      industry comparable data was used to determine an expected
      loss.

   -- 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 Flagship,
      that the trust has a valid first-priority security interest
      in the assets and the consistency with DBRS’s “Legal
      Criteria for U.S. Structured Finance” methodology.

Flagship is an independent, full-service automotive financing and
servicing company that provides financing to borrowers who do not
typically have access to prime credit lending terms for the
purchase of late-model vehicles and the refinancing of existing
automotive financings.

The ratings on the Class A-1 and Class A-2 Notes reflect the 42.00%
of initial hard credit enhancement provided by the subordinated
notes in the pool (38.00%), the Reserve Account (2.00%) and OC
(2.00%). The ratings on the Class B, Class C, Class D and Class E
Notes reflect 29.90%, 17.40%, 8.25% and 4.00% of initial hard
credit enhancement, respectively.


FLAGSHIP CREDIT 2016-4: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Flagship
Credit Auto Trust 2016-4's $340 million auto receivables-backed
notes series 2016-4.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 13,
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 availability of approximately 47.80%, 39.75%, 30.29%,
      23.66%, and 20.11% credit support (including excess spread)
      for the class A, B, C, D and E notes, respectively, based on

      stressed cash flow scenarios.  These credit support levels
      provide coverage of approximately 3.55x, 3.10x, 2.40x,
      1.75x, and 1.40x S&P's 11.75%-12.25% expected cumulative net

      loss (CNL) range for the class A, B, C, D and E notes,
      respectively.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments made under
      stressed cash flow modeling scenarios that are appropriate
      to the assigned preliminary ratings.

   -- The expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, all else being equal, S&P's ratings on the class
      A, B and C notes would remain within one rating category of
      S&P's preliminary 'AAA (sf)', 'AA (sf)' and 'A (sf)' ratings

      within the first year and its ratings on the class D and E
      notes would remain within two rating categories of S&P's
      preliminary 'BBB (sf)' and 'BB (sf)' ratings, respectively,
      within the first year.  This is within the one category
      rating tolerance for S&P's 'AAA' and 'AA' and two-category
      rating tolerance for S&P's 'A', 'BBB', and 'BB' rated
      securities, as outlined in S&P's credit stability criteria.

   -- The credit enhancement in the form of subordination,
      overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess spread.

   -- The characteristics of the collateral pool being
      securitized.  The transaction's payment and legal
      structures.

                    PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Flagship Credit Auto Trust 2016-4

Class   Rating       Type              Interest        Amount
                                       rate(i)       (mil. $)

A-1     AAA (sf)     Senior            Fixed           155.57
A-2     AAA (sf)     Senior            Fixed            52.59
B       AA (sf)      Subordinate       Fixed            41.98
C       A (sf)       Subordinate       Fixed            43.37
D       BBB (sf)     Subordinate       Fixed            31.75
E       BB (sf)      Subordinate       Fixed            14.74

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


FREMF 2015-K720: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on Class C Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed six classes of CMBS securities,
issued by FREMF 2015-K720 Mortgage Trust and three classes of
Structured Pass-Through Certificates (SPCs), Series-K720 issued by
Freddie Mac as follows:

   -- Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. B, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. C, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

   -- Cl. X1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. X2-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

SPCs Classes*

   -- Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. X1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

* Each of the SPC Classes represents a pass-through interest in its
associated underlying CMBS Class. SPC Class A-1 represents a
pass-through interest in underlying CMBS Class A-1, SPC Class A-2
represents a pass-through interest in underlying CMBS A-2, and SPC
Class X1 represents a pass-through interest in underlying CMBS
Class X1.

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

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

The ratings on three SPC classes were affirmed based on the ratings
of the underlying CMBS classes. Each represents a pass-through
interest in an underlying CMBS class. SPC Class A-1 represents a
pass-through interest in underlying CMBS Class A-1, SPC Class A-2
represents a pass-through interest in underlying CMBS Class A-2 and
SPC Class X1 represents a pass-through interest in underlying CMBS
Class X1.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.2% of the
current balance, compared to 3.6% at securitization.

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Approach to
Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December
2014.

DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model, which it
uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Credit enhancement
levels for conduit loans are driven by property type, Moody's
actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality grade (which
reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to estimate Moody's
value). Moody's fuses the conduit results with the results of its
analysis of investment grade structured credit assessed loans and
any conduit loan that represents 10% or greater of the current pool
balance.

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the September 26, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by less than 1% to
$1.579 billion from $1.583 billion at securitization. The
certificates are collateralized by 75 mortgage loans ranging in
size from less than 1% to 5% of the pool, with the top ten loans
constituting 33% of the pool.

Two loans, constituting 1% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 97% of the
pool and partial year 2016 operating results for 69% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 124%, the same as at
securitization. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 5% to the underwritten net
cash flows. Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.53X and 0.77X,
respectively, the same as at securitization. Moody's actual DSCR is
based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual debt service. Moody's
stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a 9.25% stress rate the
agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 12% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Cosmopolitan at Reston Town Center Loan ($82.0
million -- 5.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 289-unit
high-rise apartment complex in Reston, Virginia, approximately 24
miles northwest of Washington, D.C. The property was constructed in
2007. As of June 2015, the property was 95% occupied. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 127% and 0.70X, respectively, the same as at
securitization.

The second largest loan is the Townes at Heritage Hill Loan ($62.2
million -- 3.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 469-unit
garden-style apartment complex located in Glen Burnie, Maryland.
The property was constructed in 1978. As of June 2015, the property
was 95% occupied. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 118% and 0.80X,
respectively, the same as at securitization.

The third largest loan is the Floresta Loan ($52.0 million -- 3.3%
of the pool), which is secured by a 311-unit garden-style apartment
complex located in Jupiter, Florida. The property was constructed
in 2004. As of May 2015, the property was 98% occupied. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 131% and 0.68X, respectively, the same as at
securitization.


GREENWICH CAPITAL 2007-GG11: Fitch Affirms D Rating on 12 Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 19 classes of Greenwich Capital
Commercial Funding Corporation (GCCFC) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2007-GG11.

                         KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect continued paydown and overall stable
performance since Fitch's last rating action.  While defeased
collateral has increased, Fitch remains concerned about a number of
highly leveraged loans, which may have trouble refinancing.  All of
the loans in the pool mature in 2017.  Fitch modeled losses of 5.7%
of the remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance
total 12.2%, including $238.6 million (8.9% of the original pool
balance) in realized losses to date.  Fitch has designated 17 loans
(30.6%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes one specially
serviced asset (0.4%).

As of the September 2016 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 42.3% to $1.55 billion from
$2.69 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, 16 loans
(20.3% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes E through S.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the One Liberty Plaza
loan (21.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 53-story, Class A
office building located in lower Manhattan.  Built for U.S. Steel
in 1972, the glass and steel tower contains approximately 2.3
million sf.  Occupancy had fallen to 82% as of June 2016 from 99%
at year-end (YE) 2013 due to the departure of two large tenants.
While a few small portions of the space have been leased the
majority of it remains vacant. Additionally, media reports indicate
that Zurich American Insurance Co., which accounts for 11.7% of net
rentable area (NRA), is negotiating office space at 4 World Trade
Center.  The Zurich lease runs through May 2017 and the servicer
reports that the company is most likely vacating upon their
expiration.  The borrower, however, reports that they are
encouraged by the strength of tour and proposal activity.  The debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR) was reported to be 0.98x at YE 2015.
Brookfield Office Properties is the sponsor of the loan.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the Eola Park
Center loan (1.8%), which is secured by a 166,497 square foot (sf)
14-story office building located in Orlando, FL.  Occupancy and
rental rates have gradually declined since issuance due to a soft
Orlando office market.  The special servicer approved a loan
modification in June 2015 splitting the loan into a $17.5 million
A-note and a $10.2 million B-note.  The loan has remained current
since returning to the master servicer in December 2015.  Fitch,
however, assumed a 100% loss on the B-note portion.  As of June
2016, occupancy has improved to 73% from 65% at YE 2015.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is the specially
serviced Best Buy & Delphax Technologies loan (0.4%).  The loan
transferred to the special servicer in March 2016 and is secured by
two adjacent industrial buildings totaling 160,177 sf located in
Bloomington, MN.  According to the June 2016 rent roll, current
occupancy is 48%, but is projected to be 18% by YE 2016.  One
building was formerly 100% occupied by Best Buy until the tenant
vacated upon their lease expiration in January 2016.  Foreclosure
is expected to occur in the first quarter 2017 and Fitch expects a
high loss severity due to the recent occupancy issues.

                     RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on the senior classes remain Stable due to
increasing credit enhancement from continued paydown and
defeasance.  An upgrade to class A-M is possible as loans pay off
at maturity.  The subordinate classes will continue to see
downgrades if loans are unable to pay off at maturity and losses
are realized.

Fitch affirms these classes as indicated:

   -- $784.6 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $199.6 million class A-1-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $268.7 million class A-M at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $211.6 million class A-J at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
   -- $20.2 million class B at 'CCCsf'; RE 50%;
   -- $26.9 million class C at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $20.2 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $20.1 million class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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


INSITE WIRELESS 2013-1: Fitch Assigns BB- Rating on Class C Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings is taking these rating actions on InSite Wireless
Group's InSite Issuer LLC and InSite Co-Issuer Corp. Secured
Cellular Site Revenue Notes, Series 2013-1 and 2016-1:

Fitch upgrades these classes:

   -- $121,829,162* 2013-1 class A to 'Asf' from 'BBBsf'; Outlook
      Stable;
   -- $39,600,000* 2013-1 class B to 'BBB-sf' from 'BB-sf';
      Outlook revised to Stable from Positive.

Fitch assigns a rating and Rating Outlook to this previously
non-rated class:

   -- $14,000,000* 2013-1 class C 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch expects to rate these classes:

   -- $210,500,000 2016-1 class A 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $21,000,000 2016-1 class B 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $70,000,000 2016-1 class C 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.

*Class balance as of the October remittance cut-off date.

It is expected that upon the closing of the 2016 series that the
2016-1 class A is pari passu with the 2013-1 class A; the 2016-1
class B is pari passu with the 2013-1 class B; and the 2016-1 class
C is pari passu with the 2013-1 class C.  The new series of
securities will be issued pursuant to a supplement to the
indenture.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of Oct. 12, 2016.

The transaction is an issuance of notes backed by mortgaged
cellular sites representing approximately 80% of the annualized run
rate (ARR) net cash flow (NCF) and guaranteed by the direct parent
of the co-issuers.  The guarantees are secured by a pledge and
first-priority-perfected security interest in 100% of the equity
interest of the co-issuers and their subsidiaries (which own or
lease 1,196 wireless communication sites and own the rights to
operate 19 distributed antennae system [DAS] networks).

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

Trust Leverage: Fitch's NCF on the pool is $54.6 million (inclusive
of expected cash from the site acquisition account), implying a
Fitch stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.23x.  The
debt multiple relative to Fitch's NCF is 8.7x, which equates to a
debt yield of 11.4%.

Leases to Strong Tower Tenants: There are 2,800 wireless tenant
leases.  Telephony tenants represent 73.7% of annualized run rate
revenue (ARRR), and 58% of the ARRR is from investment-grade
tenants.  Tenant leases on the cellular sites have average annual
escalators of approximately 3% and an average final remaining term
(including renewals) of 22.0 years.

Diversified Pool: There are 1,196 tower sites and 19 DAS sites
spanning 46 states, Canada (145 sites), the U.S. Virgin Islands
(eight sites) and Puerto Rico (52 sites).  The largest state
(Texas) represents approximately 11.8% of ARRR.  The top 10 states
(including Ontario) represent 61.9% of ARRR.

DAS Networks: The collateral pool contains 19 DAS networks
representing 9.7% of the ARRR.  DAS sites are located within
buildings or other structures or venues for which an asset entity
has rights under a lease or license to install and operate a DAS on
the premises or to manage a DAS network on the premises.  Fitch did
not give credit for the four sites where InSite has a management
contract to manage a DAS network owned by the DAS venue.  These
sites contribute 0.2% of ARRR.  Additionally, Fitch limited
proceeds from the DAS networks to the 'BBsf' category (i.e. applied
a 'BBsf' rating cap), based on the uncertainty surrounding the
licensing agreements in a venue-bankruptcy scenario and the limited
history of these networks.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch completed a break-even analysis comparing the interest-only
debt service with both the Fitch stressed NCF and in-place
aggregate ARR NCF, derived from data provided by the arranger,
including estimated interest rates.  Fitch compared the in-place
aggregate ARR NCF and Fitch NCF with the interest-only debt service
amount and determined that 77.2% and 76.7% reductions in NCF,
respectively, would cause the 'Asf' notes to break even at 1.0x
DSCR on an interest-only basis.  Reductions to in-place aggregate
ARR NCF and Fitch NCF of 70.4% and 69.6%, respectively, would cause
the 'BBB-sf' notes to break even at 1.0x DSCR on an interest-only
basis.  Reductions to in-place aggregate ARR NCF and Fitch NCF of
58.8% and 57.8%, respectively, would cause the 'BB-sf' notes to
break even at 1.0x DSCR on an interest-only basis.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the 2013-1 and 2016-1 class A
ratings and a 6% additional decline in Fitch NCF would result in a
one category downgrade to 'BBBsf', while a 16% decline would result
in a downgrade to below investment-grade and a 37% decline would
result in a downgrade below 'CCCsf'.  Rating sensitivity was also
performed for the 2013-1 and 2016-1 class B notes and an additional
15% decline in Fitch NCF would result in a one category downgrade
to 'BB-sf', while a 25% decline would result in a downgrade below
'CCCsf'.  


JP MORGAN 2004-LN2: Moody's Lowers Rating on Cl. B Notes to B2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on two classes,
downgraded the ratings on four classes and placed the ratings of
two classes under review for possible downgrade class in J.P.
Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-LN2 as:

  Cl. A-1A, Aaa (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade;
   previously on Feb. 4, 2016, Upgraded to Aaa (sf)
  Cl. A-2, Aaa (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade;
   previously on Feb. 4, 2016, Upgraded to Aaa (sf)
  Cl. B, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Feb. 4, 2016,
   Affirmed Ba1 (sf)
  Cl. C, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Feb. 4, 2016,
   Affirmed Ba3 (sf)
  Cl. D, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Feb. 4, 2016,
   Affirmed Caa1 (sf)
  Cl. E, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Feb. 4, 2016,
   Affirmed Caa3 (sf)
  Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Feb. 4, 2016. Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. X-1, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb. 4, 2016,
   Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on P&I classes A-1A and A-2, were placed on review for
possible downgrade resulting from uncertainty regarding potential
resolutions of the specially serviced loans.

The ratings on P&I classes B, C, D and E, were downgraded due to
anticipated losses from specially serviced loans that were higher
than Moody's had previously expected.

The rating on P&I class F was affirmed because the ratings are
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 50.4% of the
current balance, compared to 22.0% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 12.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 9.4% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at:

    http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

               METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December 2014,

                   DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model, which it
uses for both conduit and fusion transactions.  Credit enhancement
levels for conduit loans are driven by property type, Moody's
actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality grade (which
reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to estimate Moody's
value).  Moody's fuses the conduit results with the results of its
analysis of investment grade structured credit assessed loans and
any conduit loan that represents 10% or greater of the current pool
balance.

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

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

                          DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the Sept. 15, 2016, distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 89% to
$141.7 million from $1.25 billion at securitization.  The
certificates are collateralized by twenty-one mortgage loans
ranging in size from less than 1% to 43% of the pool, with the top
ten loans constituting 91% of the pool.  Three loans, constituting
1% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

One loan, constituting 1% of the pool, is on the master servicer's
watchlist.  The watchlist includes loans that meet certain
portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE Finance
Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package.  As part of Moody's
ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Twenty-six loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $85 million (for an average loss
severity of 63.5%).  Three loans, constituting 55% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing.  Chesapeake Square loan
($61.5 million -- 43.4% of the pool), which is secured by an
800,000 square foot (SF) single-level regional mall located just
south of Norfolk, Virginia (collateral for the loan is 530,158 SF).
The mall is anchored by Target, J.C. Penney, and Burlington Coat
Factory (Target is not part of the collateral).  The mall has lost
two anchor tenants in Macy's and Sears since early 2015.  The loan
initially transferred to special servicing in 2014 due to imminent
monetary default and a modification was executed in June 2014.  The
loan subsequently transferred back to the master servicer in
October 2014.  However, the loan returned to special servicing in
July 2015 due to imminent default.  The loan became REO in April
2016.  As of September 2016, total mall and inline occupancy was
58% and 56% respectively, compared to 69% and 61% as of September
2015 and 87% and 63% as of September 2014.

The remaining two specially serviced loans are secured by
portfolios of industrial properties.  Moody's estimates an
aggregate $71.3 million loss for the specially serviced loans (91%
expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 60% of
the pool.  Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 59%, compared to
60% at Moody's last review.  Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans,
and specially serviced and troubled loans.  Moody's net cash flow
(NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 13% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI).  Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.2%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.67X and 2.30X,
respectively, compared to 1.67X and 2.22X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service.  Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 21% of the pool balance.  The
largest loan is the PaperWorks Building Loan, formerly known as the
Ball Corporation Building, ($10.8 million -- 7.6% of the pool),
which is secured by a 496,200 SF industrial building located in
Baldwinsville, New York.  As of October 2016, the property was
fully leased by PaperWorks through 2032.  Due to the single-tenant
exposure, Moody's valuation incorporated a lit/dark analysis.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 89% and 1.06X, respectively,
compared to 92% and 1.03X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the 1140 Broadway Loan ($10 million --
7.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 16-story office building
in Manhattan, New York and located one block from Madison Square
Park.  As of December 2015, the property was 85% leased to a wide
variety of tenants, compared to 92% leased in December 2014.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 39% and 2.62X, respectively,
compared to 40% and 2.58X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the T-Mobile Loan ($8.4 million -- 5.9%
of the pool), which is secured by a 77,484 SF suburban office
building located in Meridian, Idaho.  The building is 100% leased
to T-Moblie through June 2019.  Due to the single-tenant exposure,
Moody's valuation incorporated a lit/dark analysis. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 85% and 1.14X, respectively.



JP MORGAN 2004-LN2: S&P Lowers Rating on Class C Certs to B+
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on two classes of commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates from JPMorgan Chase Commercial
Mortgage Securities Corp.'s series 2004-LN2, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  At the same time,
S&P affirmed its ratings on four other classes from the same
transaction.

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

S&P lowered its ratings on class C to 'B+ (sf)' to reflect credit
support erosion that S&P anticipates will occur upon the eventual
resolution of the specially serviced asset, Chesapeake Square
($61.0 million, 43.4%).  In addition, S&P believes this class is
susceptible to interest shortfall based on S&P's belief that the
new appraisal value for Chesapeake Square will be significantly
lower than the appraisal value from November 2015 due to the
broker's opinion value (BOV) S&P received from the special
servicer.  Furthermore, S&P lowered its rating on class D to
'D (sf)' because it expects the accumulated interest shortfalls to
remain outstanding for the foreseeable future.

According to the Sept. 15, 2016, trustee remittance report, the
current monthly interest shortfalls totaled $56,057 and resulted
primarily from:

   -- Non-recoverable fees totaling $33,805;

   -- Other shortfalls totaling $20,144;

   -- Special servicing fees totaling $16,877; and

   -- Net appraisal subordinate entitlement reduction amounts
      totaling $15,043.

The current interest shortfalls affected classes subordinate to and
including class E, while class D have interest shortfalls
outstanding.

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

While available credit enhancement levels suggest positive rating
movements on class B, S&P's analysis also considered the fact that
the class is susceptible to interest shortfall risk if Chesapeake
Square is deemed non-recoverable or if the appraisal reduction
amount (ARA) increases beyond S&P's estimated value.

S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class X1 interest-only
(IO) certificates based on S&P's criteria for rating IO
securities.

                      TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 15, 2016, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $141.7 million, which is 11.5% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 18 loans and three real
estate-owned assets, down from 177 loans at issuance.  Three of
these assets ($78.3 million, 55.2%) are with the special servicer;
three ($1.5 million, 1.0%) are defeased; and one ($1.5 million,
1.1%) is on the master servicer's watchlist. The master servicer,
Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, reported financial information
for 88.1% of the nondefeased loans in the pool, of which 44.2% was
partial or year-end 2015 data, and the remainder was year-end 2014
data.

S&P calculated a 1.68x S&P Global Ratings' weighted average debt
service coverage (DSC) and 49.9% S&P Global Ratings' weighted
average loan-to-value (LTV) ratio using a 7.69% S&P Global Ratings'
weighted average capitalization rate.  The DSC, LTV, and
capitalization rate calculations exclude the three specially
serviced assets and three defeased loans.  The top 10 nondefeased
loans have an aggregate outstanding pool trust balance of
$129.3 million (91.2%).  Using adjusted servicer-reported numbers,
S&P calculated a S&P Global Ratings' weighted average DSC and LTV
of 1.43x and 48.4%, respectively, for seven of the top 10
nondefeased loans.  The remaining assets are specially serviced and
discussed below.

To date, the transaction has experienced $68.2 million in principal
losses, or 5.6% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P expects
losses to reach approximately 9.0% of the original pool trust
balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date and
additional losses S&P expects upon the eventual resolution of the
specially serviced assets.

                        CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Sept. 15, 2016, trustee remittance report, three assets
in the pool was with the special servicer, Torchlight Loan Services
LLC.  Details of the two largest specially serviced assets, one of
which is a top 10 nondefeased loan, are:

   -- The Chesapeake Square REO asset ($61.5 million, 43.4%) is
      the largest nondefeased asset in the pool and has a total
      reported exposure of $65.4 million.  The asset is a regional

      mall retail property totaling 530,158 sq. ft. in Chesapeake,

      Va.  The loan was transferred to the special servicer on
      July 21, 2015, for imminent default.  The property became
      REO in April 2016.  An ARA of $8.5 million is in effect
      against this asset.  S&P expects a significant loss upon
      this loan's eventual resolution.

   -- The Dayton Portfolio REO asset ($8.8 million, 6.2%) has a
      total reported exposure of $10.9 million.  The asset is
      seven properties totaling 342,746 sq. ft. of flex industrial

      property in Ohio, of which two properties have been sold.
      The loan was transferred to the special servicer on Nov. 21,

      2013, for imminent default.  The properties became REO in
      October 2014.  An ARA of $4.8 million is in effect against
      this asset.  S&P expects a significant loss upon this loan's

      eventual resolution.

The one remaining asset with the special servicer has an individual
balance that represent less than 0.5% of the total pool trust
balance.  S&P estimated losses for the three specially serviced
assets, arriving at a weighted-average loss severity of 54.7%.

With respect to the specially serviced assets noted above, a
significant loss is 60% or greater.

RATINGS LIST

JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2004-LN2
                                        Rating
Class             Identifier            To           From
A-2               46625YCV3             AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-1A              46625YBN2             AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
B                 46625YCW1             A (sf)       A (sf)
C                 46625YCX9             B+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
D                 46625YCY7             D (sf)       CCC- (sf)
X-1               46625YBL6             AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)



JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC15: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class A-M Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings on two classes and
downgraded the rating on one class in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial
Mortgage Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-CIBC15 as follows:

   -- Cl. A-M, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Affirmed B1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015
      Affirmed C (sf)

   -- Cl. X-1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov 24, 2015

      Affirmed B2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on two P&I classes, classes A-M and A-J, were affirmed
because the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 32.9% of the
current balance, compared to 8.3% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 18.3% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 19.3% at the last review.

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December 2014, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single
Borrower CMBS" published in October 2015.

DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model, which it
uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Credit enhancement
levels for conduit loans are driven by property type, Moody's
actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality grade (which
reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to estimate Moody's
value). Moody's fuses the conduit results with the results of its
analysis of investment grade structured credit assessed loans and
any conduit loan that represents 10% or greater of the current pool
balance.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 11, compared to 12 at Moody's last review.

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

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 53.6% of the pool is in
special servicing and performing conduit loans only represent 46.4%
of the pool. In this approach, Moody's determines a probability of
default for each specially serviced loan that it expects will
generate a loss and estimates a loss given default based on a
review of broker's opinions of value (if available), other
information from the special servicer, available market data and
Moody's internal data. The loss given default for each loan also
takes into consideration repayment of servicer advances to date,
estimated future advances and closing costs. Translating the
probability of default and loss given default into an expected loss
estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss from specially
serviced loans to the most junior class and the recovery as a pay
down of principal to the most senior class.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the October 12, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 87.1% to $277
million from $2.1 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 19 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 20.9% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 78.5%
of the pool. There are no loans that have defeased.

One loan, constituting 20.9% of the pool, is on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Thirty-four loans have been liquidated from the pool at a loss,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $297.6 million (for an
average loss severity of 30.6%). Twelve loans, constituting 53.6%
of the pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest
specially serviced loan is the Marriott - Knoxville ($26.2 million
-- 9.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 378-room hotel built in
1972 and located in Knoxville, Tennessee overlooking the Tennessee
River. The loan transferred to the Special Servicer in June 2016
for maturity default. The special servicer is currently pursuing
foreclosure.

The remaining 11 specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $78.5 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (53.4% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for one poorly
performing loans, constituting 20.6% of the pool.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 86% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 84.5%, compared
to 103.5% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component
excludes loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL
loans, and specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash
flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 20.5% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.13X and 1.31X,
respectively, compared to 1.26X and 1.01X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 38.4% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the Scottsdale Plaza Loan ($57.2 million --
20.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 404-room unflagged, full
service resort hotel property located in Scottsdale, Arizona. The
loan transferred to special servicing in April 2015 for imminent
default and returned to the master servicer as a corrected mortgage
loan. The loan modification that included a $4 million equity
contribution from the Borrower to fund renovations, additional
guarantors, and a renovation completion guaranty in exchange for a
2 year extension (with an option for a third subject to certain
requirements) closed on April 11, 2016. The June 2016 year-to-date
occupancy and average daily room were 74.3% and $152. Moody's
recognizes this as a troubled loan.

The second largest loan is the Kaiser Foundation Building Loan
($30.2 million -- 11% of the pool), which is secured by a 62,500
square feet (SF) single tenant office building. The property is
100% occupied by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals with a lease
expiration of June 30, 2018 and is used for specialties offices and
physical therapy. The property is located half a mile away from the
Kaiser Hospital. Moody's analysis incorporated a lit/dark blend due
to the single tenant risk. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 97.4%
and 1.05X, respectively, compared to 93.5% and 1.1X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Harbor Freight Tool USA, Inc. Loan
($17.9 million -- 6.5% of the pool), which is secured by a one
million square foot (SF) single tenant warehouse building, located
just outside the city limits of Dillon, South Carolina,
approximately two miles from Dillon and 9 miles from the North
Carolina border. The property is 100% occupied by Harbor Freight
Tools Texas, LP with a lease expiration date of June 30, 2034.
Moody's analysis incorporated a lit/dark blend due to the single
tenant risk. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 98.8% and 1.09X,
respectively, compared to 73% and 1.48X at the last review.


KODIAK CDO II: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class A-3 Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on these notes
issued by Kodiak CDO II, Ltd.:

  $338,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
   2042 (current balance of $79,469,441), Upgraded to Baa2 (sf);
   previously on February 10, 2016 Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)
  $53,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
   2042 Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb. 10, 2016,
   Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on these notes:

  $80,000,000 Class A-3 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
   2042 Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Feb. 10, 2016, Upgraded to

   B1 (sf)

  $81,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
   2042 Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan. 31, 2014, Upgraded
   to Caa3 (sf)

  $5,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed/Floating Rate Notes
   Due 2042 Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan. 31, 2014,
   Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Kodiak CDO II, Ltd., issued in June 2007, is a collateralized debt
obligation backed mainly by a portfolio of REIT trust preferred
securities (TruPS), with small exposures to insurance TruPS, TruPS
CDO tranches, corporate bonds, and CMBS and CRE CDO securities.

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions are primarily a result of the deleveraging of
the Class A-1 notes and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization ratios since June 2016.

The Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately 14.4% or $34.5
million since June 2016 using principal proceeds from the
redemption of the underlying assets and the diversion of excess
interest proceeds.  Based on Moody's calculations, the OC ratios
for Class A-1 and Class A-2 notes have improved to 461.0% and
276.6%, respectively, from June 2016 levels of 350.3% and 239.1%,
respectively.  The Class A-1 notes will continue to benefit from
the diversion of excess interest and the use of proceeds from
redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool.  The diversion of
excess interest to pay down the Class A-1 notes will increase after
the two outstanding hedges mature in February 2017.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery rate,
are based on its methodology and could differ from the trustee's
reported numbers.  In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par and
principal proceeds balance of $366.5 million, defaulted/deferring
par of $91.6 million, a weighted average default probability of
60.7% (implying a WARF of 4701), and a weighted average recovery
rate upon default of 13.7%.  In addition to the quantitative
factors Moody's explicitly models, qualitative factors are part of
rating committee considerations.  Moody's considers the structural
protections in the transaction, the risk of an event of default,
recent deal performance under current market conditions, the legal
environment and specific documentation features.  All information
available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts,
inputs from other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and
judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on the
transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," 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, as described:

  1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
     negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in

     the general economy.

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

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

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

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized REIT companies that Moody's does not rate publicly. To
evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that do not have public
ratings, Moody's REIT group assesses their credit quality using the
REIT firms' annual financials.

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

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 2803)
Class A-1: +2
Class A-2: +3
Class A-3: +4
Class B-1: +5
Class B-2: +5

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 5368)
Class A-1: 0
Class A-2: -1
Class A-3: -3
Class B-1: -3
Class B-2: -3


MADISON PARK X: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R replacement notes from Madison Park
Funding X Ltd./Madison Park Funding X LLC, a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) originally issued in 2012 that is managed by
Credit Suisse Asset Management.  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.  The class C-R and D-R notes are expected to be issued at a
lower spread than the original notes, and the class E-R notes are
expected to be issued at a higher spread than the original notes

On the Oct. 27, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to redeem the
original notes.  At that time, 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 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:

   -- The original pari passu class A-1a, A-1b, and A-2 notes are
      being refinanced by a single floating-rate class A-R notes.
   -- The original pari passu class B-1 and B-2 notes are being
      refinanced by the single floating-rate class B-R notes.
   -- The stated maturity, reinvestment period, and weighted
      average life test date will be extended four years.
   -- The minimum recovery covenants are being amended.

REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

Replacement Notes
Class                Amount    Interest
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)
A-R                  488.25    Three-month Libor plus 1.45
B-R                   88.50    Three-month Libor plus 1.80
C-R                   59.25    Three-month Libor plus 2.40
D-R                   39.50    Three-month Libor plus 4.00
E-R                   37.50    Three-month Libor plus 7.50

Original Notes
Class                Amount    Interest
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)
A-1a                 300.00    Three-month Libor plus 1.37
A-1b                  15.75    Three-month Libor plus 2.00
A-2                  172.50    Three-month Libor plus 1.40
B-1                   58.50    Three-month Libor plus 2.35
B-2                   30.00    3.4167
C                     59.25    Three-month Libor plus 3.05
D                     39.50    Three-month Libor plus 4.25
E                     37.50    Three-month Libor plus 5.25

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 or
ultimate principal, or both, to each of the rated 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 S&P will take further rating actions
as it deems necessary.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Madison Park Funding X Ltd./Madison Park Funding X LLC  

Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
A-R                       AAA (sf)             488.25
B-R                       AA+ (sf)              88.50
C-R                       A+ (sf)               59.25
D-R                       BBB+ (sf)             39.50
E-R                       BB (sf)               37.50
Subordinated notes        NR                    85.00

NR--Not rated.



MAGNETITE VII: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-1-R, A-2-R,
B-R, C-R, and D-R senior secured floating-rate replacement notes
from Magnetite VII Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
originally issued in 2012.  S&P withdrew the ratings on the
original class A-1A, A-1B, A-2A, A-2B, B, C, and D notes following
payment in full on the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date.  S&P also
withdrew its rating on the currently unfunded class A-1 senior
notes, as the class will no longer be able to fund following the
refinancing.

On the Oct. 17, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement note issuances were
used to redeem the original class A-1A, A-1B, A-2A, A-2B, B, C, and
D notes as outlined in the transaction document provisions.
Therefore, S&P withdrew its ratings on the original notes in line
with their full redemption, and S&P is assigning ratings to the
replacement notes.

The replacement notes are being issued via a 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 non-call period to Jan. 15, 2018;
   -- Extend the weighted average life test to Oct. 17, 2022;
   -- Adopt the non-model version of the CDO Monitor application;
      and
   -- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated
      industry classifications outlined in S&P's August 2016 CLO
      criteria update.

There is no change to the transaction's legal final maturity date.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in the
July 29, 2016, 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 or
ultimate principal, or both, to each of the rated tranches.

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

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Magnetite VII Ltd.
Class                Rating      Amount (mil $)
A-1-R                AAA (sf)            372.00
A-2-R                AA+ (sf)             75.00
B-R                  A+ (sf)              47.40
C-R                  BBB (sf)             28.80
D-R                  BB (sf)              28.80
Subordinated notes   NR                   60.00

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Magnetite VII Ltd.
                           Rating
Original class       To              From
A-1A                 NR              AAA (sf)
A-1B                 NR              AAA (sf)
A-1 Senior           NR              AAA (sf)
A-2A                 NR              AA+ (sf)
A-2B                 NR              AA+ (sf)
B                    NR              A+ (sf)
C                    NR              BBB (sf)
D                    NR              BB (sf)



MORGAN STANLEY 2005-HQ7: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Cl. D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on five classes
and downgraded the ratings on three classes of Morgan Stanley
Capital I Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2005-HQ7 as follows:

   -- Cl. D, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2015
      Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

   -- Cl. E, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2015 Affirmed

      B3 (sf)

   -- Cl. F, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2015
      Affirmed Caa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. G, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2015
      Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2015 Affirmed
      C (sf)

   -- Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2015 Affirmed
      C (sf)

   -- Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2015 Affirmed
      C (sf)

   -- Cl. X, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2015
      Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on two P&I classes were downgraded because of higher
realized and anticipated losses from loans in specially serviced
and troubled loans.

The rating on the IO class, class X, was downgraded because the
class is not receiving interest, nor is it expected to receive
monthly interest payments in the future.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 66% of the
current balance compared to 48% at last review. Moody's base
expected plus realized losses now totals 8.4% compared to 8.1% at
last review.

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in October 2015.

DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

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

Moody's analysis used the excel-based Large Loan Model in
formulating a rating recommendation. The large loan model derives
credit enhancement levels based on an aggregation of adjusted
loan-level proceeds derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios.
Major adjustments to determining proceeds include leverage, loan
structure, property type and sponsorship. Moody's also further
adjusts these aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits
associated with loan level diversity and other concentrations and
correlations.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the September 14, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 94% to $114.1
million from $1.96 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 16 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 56% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 97% of
the pool. One loan, constituting 0.8% of the pool, has defeased and
is secured by US government securities. There are no loans with
investment-grade structured credit assessments.

Six loans, constituting 7% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Forty-five loans have been liquidated from the pool with losses,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $89.8 million (for an
average loss severity of 43.7%). Four loans, constituting 87.8% of
the pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest specially
serviced loan is the Hilltop Mall Loan ($64.35 million -- 56% of
the pool). The loan was transferred to special servicing in May
2012 due to imminent default and became REO in June 2013. The loan
is secured by a 575,000 square foot (SF) portion of a 1.1 million
SF regional mall located in Richmond, California. The largest
collateral tenants include Walmart and 24 Hour Fitness. The mall's
non-collateral anchors are Macy's, JC Penny and Sears. As of June
2016, the inline occupancy was 39% compared to 25% as of September
2015. The special servicer indicated that the property is being
marketed for sale. Moody's expects a significant loss from this
loan.

The remaining three specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $75 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (75% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 65% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 51%, compared to 60%
at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans
with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 13% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 10%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.40X and 2.38X,
respectively, compared to 1.37X and 1.91X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 7% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Boston Post Portfolio -- Equinox (B) Loan ($4.1
million -- 3.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 25,314-SF
retail property in Mamaroneck, New York. The property is 100%
occupied by Equinox with a lease expiration of June 2030. Due to
the single tenant nature, Moody's review incorporated a Lit/Dark
analysis. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 73% and 1.49X,
respectively, compared to 75% and 1.44X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Holly Hill Self Storage Loan ($2.7
million -- 2.3% of the pool), which is secured by an
eight-building, two story, 51,555 SF self-storage facility located
in Alexandria, Virginia. As of December 2015, the property was 93%
leased, the same as at last review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 46% and 2.37X, respectively, compared to 52% and 2.10X at the
last review.

The third largest loan is the Ganassa Tile Loan ($1.4 million --
1.2% of the pool), which is secured by 29,450 SF industrial
building located in Ijamsville, Maryland. The property was 100%
leased as of December 2015, the same as at last review. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 60% and 1.62X, respectively, compared to 79%
and 1.24X at the last review.



MORGAN STANLEY 2007-HQ12: Fitch Cuts Cl. D Notes Rating to 'CCCsf'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded two classes and affirmed 18 classes of
Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust (MSCI) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2007-HQ12.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations of the senior classes are the result of sufficient
credit enhancement relative to pool expected losses. The downgrades
of the two subordinate classes reflect a high modeled loss of the
remaining pool. Fitch modeled losses of 16.2% for the remaining
pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total 8.5%,
including $61.5 million (3.1% of the original pool balance) in
realized losses to date. There are eight specially serviced assets
(13.1%). 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.

As of the September 2016 remittance report, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 66.5% to $673.40 million from
$2.01 billion at issuance. Interest shortfalls totalling $11.6
million are affecting classes F through S. Excluding the eight
specially serviced loans, approximately 82% of the remaining pool
is scheduled to mature in the next 12 months, including one
anticipated repayment date (ARD) loan (8.6%) and the six defeased
loans (4.1%). In addition, three loans (4%) will mature by year-end
(YE) 2017.

There were variances from criteria related to classes A-J and A-JFL
for which the model output suggested that upgrades were possible.
Fitch determined that upgrades are not warranted at this time as
the pool has become more concentrated, modeled loss on the
remaining pool remains high and additional loans have become
specially serviced or real-estate owned (REO) with a possibility
for interest shortfalls.

The largest contributor to Fitch's modeled losses is the REO
Timberland Buildings asset (4.9% of the pool), which is an
approximately 354,300 square foot (sf) office property located in
Troy, MI. The loan transferred to special servicing in September
2012 for imminent default. The servicer-reported occupancy was 49%
as of August 2016.

The second largest modeled loss is Somerset Crossing (3.8%), a loan
secured by a 104,128 sf grocery-anchored center located in
Gainesville, VA. The asset transferred to the special servicer in
late September 2016 for imminent maturity default. The property is
reported at 94.6% occupancy; however, the largest tenant, Shoppers
Warehouse (64.4% of the space), went dark in 2011 and a replacement
tenant has not been found. Shoppers' lease expires in 2023 and the
retailer still pays rent. The loan's scheduled maturity date is
April 2017.

The third largest modeled loss is a REO office property (1.9%)
located in Long Beach, CA adjacent to the runway of the Long Beach
airport. The 150,000 sf asset transferred to Special Servicer in
February 2013, because of imminent default due to the sole tenant
vacating. The building is on a ground lease with the City of Long
Beach that expires in 2050. Occupancy is now reported at 21% as of
August 2016.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Positive Outlook on classes A-J and A-JFL reflect the
possibility of an upgrade if loans pay off at maturity and the
classes will not receive interest shortfalls. The Stable Outlooks
are due to sufficient CE and the expectation for continued pay
down. The Negative Outlook on class C is for the potential for
downgrade if additional loans fail to pay off at scheduled
maturity. The distressed classes (those rated below 'B-sf') may be
subject to further downgrades as additional losses are realized.

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

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

Fitch has downgraded the following ratings:

   -- $24.5 million class D to 'CCCsf' from 'Bsf'; RE 80%;

   -- $22 million class G to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings and revised Rating
Outlooks as indicated:

   -- $147.3 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $170.9 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $25 million class A-MFL at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $53 million class A-J at 'Asf'; Outlook to Positive from
      Stable;

   -- $91.4 million class A-JFL at 'Asf'; Outlook to Positive from

      Stable;

   -- $41.6 million class B at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $22 million class C at 'BBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
      Stable;

   -- $14.7 million class E at 'CCCsf'; RE 0%.

   -- $24.5 million class F at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;

   -- $22 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;

   -- $14.4 million class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

The fully depleted classes K, L, M, N, O, P and Q are affirmed at
'Dsf'; RE 0% due to realized losses.

The class A-1, A-2, A-2FL, A-2FX, A-3, A-4 and A-5 certificates
have paid in full. Fitch does not rate the class S certificates.
Fitch previously withdrew the rating on the interest-only class X
certificates.




MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ14: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Certs to B-
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on three classes of
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Morgan Stanley
Capital I Trust 2007-IQ14, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction.  In addition, S&P lowered its
ratings on two classes and affirmed its ratings on six classes from
the same transaction.

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

S&P raised its ratings on classes A-4, A-5, and A-1A to reflect its
expectation of the available credit enhancement for these classes,
which S&P believes is greater than its most recent estimate of
necessary credit enhancement for the respective rating levels.  The
upgrades also follow S&P's views regarding the current and future
performance of the transaction's collateral and available liquidity
support, as well as the reduction in the trust balance.

The downgrades on classes A-M and A-MFX reflect credit support
erosion that S&P anticipates will occur upon the eventual
resolution of the 11 assets (reflecting crossed loans,
$207.3 million, 7.7%) with the special servicer (discussed below).

The 'AAA (sf)' affirmations on classes A-2, A-2FL, A-2FX, A-3,
A-AB reflect S&P's belief that the classes will pay off before the
crossover date, which is when the allocation of both principal and
losses to these classes will change to pro rata from sequential.
The affirmations also reflect S&P's views regarding the current and
future performance of the transaction's collateral, the transaction
structure, and liquidity support available to the classes.

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

                        TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 15, 2016, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $2.71 billion, which is 55.2% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 286 loans and two real
estate-owned assets (reflecting crossed loans), down from 423 loans
at issuance.  Eleven of these assets ($207.3 million, 7.7%) are
with the special servicer, 31 ($141.3 million, 5.2%) are defeased,
and 88 ($1.1 billion, 40.8%) are on the master servicers' combined
watchlist.  The master servicers, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and
Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, reported financial information
for 94.1% of the nondefeased loans in the pool, of which 2.8% was
partial-year 2016 data, 87.1% was partial-year or year-end 2015
data, and the remainder was year-end 2014 data.

S&P calculated a 1.13x S&P Global Ratings weighted average debt
service coverage (DSC) and a 107.6% S&P Global Ratings weighted
average loan-to-value (LTV) ratio using a 7.74% S&P Global Ratings
weighted average capitalization rate.  The DSC, LTV, and
capitalization rate calculations exclude the specially serviced
assets and defeased loans.  The top 10 nondefeased loans have an
aggregate outstanding pool trust balance of $1.02 billion (37.6%).
Using adjusted servicer-reported numbers, S&P calculated an S&P
Global Ratings weighted average DSC and LTV of 0.83x and 133.5%,
respectively, for nine of the top 10 nondefeased loans.  The
remaining loan is specially serviced and discussed.

To date, the transaction has experienced $507.3 million in
principal losses, or 10.3% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 13.0% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses S&P expects upon the eventual resolution of
the 11 specially serviced assets (reflecting crossed loans).

                      CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Sept. 15, 2016, trustee remittance report, 11 assets
(reflecting crossed loans) in the pool are with the special
servicer, C-III Asset Management LLC (C-III).  Details of the two
largest specially serviced assets, one of which is a top 10
nondefeased loan, are:

The City View Center loan ($81.0 million, 3.0%) is the
fifth-largest nondefeased loan in the pool and has a total reported
exposure of $81.0 million.  The loan is secured by a retail
property, built in 2006 and covering 506,141 sq. ft., located in
Garfield Heights, Ohio.  The loan was transferred to the special
servicer on Nov. 12, 2008, because of imminent payment default.

The special servicer stated that it is pursuing a repurchase of the
mortgage loan, and litigation is pending.  An apprasial reduction
amount (ARA) of $103.6 million is in effect against the loan.  The
reported occupancy as of year-end 2015 was 22.0%. Assuming that the
repurchase is denied, S&P expects a significant loss upon this
loan's eventual resolution.

The Ershing Mall Portfolio Roll-Up loan ($31.2 million, 1.2%) has a
$33.9 million total reported exposure.  The loan comprises three
anchored retail malls (Mercer, Middlesboro, and Parkway Plaza)
located in Kentucky and West Virginia.  The portfolio totals
1,200,148 sq. ft.  The loan was transferred to the special servicer
on Sept. 16, 2015, for impending payment default after the borrower
indicated it would be unwilling to continue funding debt service
shortfalls.  An ARA of $20.7 million is in effect against this
loan.  S&P expects a significant loss upon this loan's eventual
resolution.

The remaining assets with the special servicer each have individual
balances that represent less than 1.0% of the total pool trust
balance.  S&P estimated losses for the 11 specially serviced
assets, arriving at a weighted average loss severity of 62.8%.

With respect to the specially serviced assets noted above, a
significant loss is 60% or greater.

RATINGS LIST

Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2007-IQ14
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2007-IQ14
                                  Rating
Class             Identifier      To                  From
A-1A              61754KAB1       AA (sf)             A (sf)
A-2               61754KAC9       AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
A-2FL             61754KBE4       AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
A-3               61754KAD7       AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
A-AB              61754KAE5       AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
A-4               61754KAF2       AA (sf)             A (sf)
A-5               61754KBJ3       AA (sf)             A (sf)
A-M               61754KAG0       B- (sf)             B (sf)
A-MFX             61754KBM6       B- (sf)             B (sf)
X                 61754KAK1       AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
A-2FX             61754KBK0       AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)



MORGAN STANLEY 2016-C31: Fitch to Rate Class X-E Debt 'BB-sf'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on the Morgan Stanley
Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C31.

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

   -- $50,100,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $27,600,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $69,700,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $17,811,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $210,000,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $292,019,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $667,230,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $110,808,000b class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $65,531,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $45,277,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $44,085,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $52,425,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $25,021,000ab class X-E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $10,723,000ab class X-F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $52,425,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $25,021,000a class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $10,723,000a class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes are not expected to be rated:

   -- $42,894,169ab class X-G 'NR';

   -- $42,894,169ab class G 'NR'.

a - Privately placed pursuant to Rule 144A.
b - Notional amount and interest only.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch Leverage: The transaction has slightly higher leverage than
other recent Fitch-rated transactions. The Fitch debt service
coverage ratio (DSCR) for the trust of 1.19x is similar to the year
to date (YTD) 2016 average of 1.19x; however, the Fitch loan to
value (LTV) for the trust of 107.5% is slightly higher than the YTD
2016 average of 105.8%. Excluding credit-opinion loans, the pool's
Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.17x and 110.1%, respectively.
Comparatively, the YTD 2016 average Fitch DSCR and LTV for
Fitch-rated deals, excluding credit-opinion and co-op loans, are
1.15x and 109.9%.

Investment-Grade Credit-Opinion Loans: Two loans in the pool,
International Square (3.2% of pool) and The Shops at Crystals (1.6%
of pool), have investment-grade credit opinions. International
Square has an investment-grade credit opinion of 'AA-sf*' on a
stand-alone basis. The Shops at Crystals has an investment-grade
credit opinion of 'BBB+sf*' on a stand-alone basis. The two loans
have a weighted average Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.64x and 54.5%,
respectively. The proportion of credit-opinion loans in this pool
is below the YTD 2016 average of 7.4%.

Above-Average Amortization: Based on the scheduled balance at
maturity, the pool will pay down 13.9%, which is above the YTD 2016
average of 10.3%. Five loans, representing 10.8% of the pool, are
full-term interest only, and 21 loans, representing 46.9% of the
pool, are partial interest only. The remainder of the pool is made
up of 34 balloon loans, representing 42.2% of the pool, with loan
terms of five to 10 years.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 12.0% 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). Unanticipated further
declines in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and
loss severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions
on the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to MSBAM
2016-C31 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivities to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBBsf'
could result.


MSJP COMMERCIAL 2015-HAUL: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of MSJP Commercial Mortgage
Securities Trust 2015-HAUL (MSJP 2015-HAUL).

                      KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect stable loan performance and no material
changes since issuance.  Based on Fitch's surveillance analysis,
which uses the same framework that was set out at issuance, the
loan's performance metrics have remained relatively unchanged since
issuance.

Fitch reviewed the March 2016 rent rolls of the underlying
properties in the portfolio and the overall servicer reported
portfolio occupancy was 88.3% which remains in line with Fitch's
expectations at issuance.  The master servicer is awaiting a
response from the borrower regarding Fitch's inquiries pertaining
to various line item variations in the trailing 12 month (TTM)
March 2016 OSAR.

The transaction certificates represent the beneficial interests in
a 20-year, fixed-rate, fully amortizing mortgage loan secured by
105 self-storage properties located across 35 states.  All of the
properties are owned fee simple.  Loan proceeds were used to return
cash to the borrower, fund up-front reserves and pay closing costs.
The loan's sponsor is AMERCO, a Nevada corporation, which is the
holding company that owns 100% of U-Haul International, Inc., a
Nevada corporation.  The portfolio is managed by U-Haul through
management agreements with U-Haul subsidiaries in each of the
states where the portfolio properties are located.  The loan
matures in September 2035.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlook for all classes remains Stable. Fitch does not
foresee positive or negative ratings migration until a material
economic or asset-level event changes the loan's performance
metrics

Fitch has affirmed these ratings:

   -- $59,000,000a class A notes at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $59,000,000ab class X-A notes at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $31,700,000ab class X-B notes at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $31,700,000a class B notes at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $24,300,000a class C notes at 'A-sf; Outlook Stable;
   -- $32,000,000a class D notes at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $23,000,000a class E notes at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

a Privately placed pursuant to Rule 144A.
b Notional amount and interest-only.


NATIONSLINK FUNDING 1999-LTL-1: S&P Hikes Cl. F Debt Rating to B+
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on classes C, D, E, and F
from NationsLink Funding Corp. series 1999-LTL-1, a U.S.
credit-tenant lease (CTL) transaction.  In addition, S&P affirmed
its rating on the class X interest-only (IO) certificates from the
same transaction.

The upgrades primarily reflect the amortization of the transaction
from the underlying CTL loans as well as commercial real estate
loans and S&P's expectation that the available credit enhancement
for these classes will be greater than its estimate of the
necessary credit enhancement required for the current ratings.

The rating actions also reflect S&P's analysis of the transaction,
which included a review of the credit characteristics of all the
remaining loans in the pool, the transaction structure, and the
liquidity available to the trust.

The analysis of the CTL loans reflects the application of S&P's
global rating methodology for CTL transactions.

While available credit enhancement levels may suggest further
positive rating movement on classes E and F, S&P's analysis also
considered the liquidity support available to the classes.

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

                        TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 22, 2016, remittance report, the pool consisted of
57 CTL loans ($42.9 million, 87.9%), and three commercial real
estate loans ($5.9 million, 12.1%; representing crossed loans),
down from $731.3 million at issuance.  Of the 57 CTL loans, five
($17.6 million, 36.1%) were bondable CTL loans, while the remaining
52 ($25.3 million, 51.8%) were triple- or double-net CTL loans
supplemented with a lease enhancement policy from Lexington
Insurance Co. ('A+/Stable').  CTL loans with lease expirations
prior to loan maturities are supplemented with a lease extension
policy from Columbia Insurance Co. ('AA+/Stable').  All of the
loans in the transaction are fully amortizing, with approximately
32% maturing in 2017 and 2018, and about 55% of the pool maturing
in 2022 and 2023.

The tenants with the greatest CTL loan exposure (greater than 5%
exposure) in the transaction include Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize
N.V. (five loans, $15.7 million, 32.3%); Rite Aid Corp. (23 loans,
$8.8 million, 18.0%); CVS Corp. (10 loans, $3.4 million, 7.0%); and
Circuit City Stores (currently occupied by CarMax; one loan, $3.3
million, 6.8%).  The liquidation of two assets has resulted in
realized losses totaling $1.2 million to the trust.

The master servicer, Midland Loan Services Inc., reported three
loans ($1.2 million, 2.5%) on the watchlist as of the September
2016 report.  The largest loan on watchlist is Plaza Galeria
($901,942, 1.8%) and is secured by a retail property located in
Santa Fe, N.M.  The loan is on the watchlist due to below-threshold
debt service coverage (DSC) as a result of declining base rents.
One of the other watchlist loans, Eckerd Corp. ($327,347, 0.7%), is
secured by a property leased to Rite Aid Corp., and the loan is on
the watchlist because Rite Aid has vacated the property but is
still performing under the lease.  The remaining watchlist loan,
McDonald's Corp. ($11,258, 0.02%), is secured by a property leased
to McDonald's and is on the watchlist due to its upcoming maturity.
The loan is expected to pay off in the next few months.  There are
no loans with the special servicer.

RATINGS LIST

NationsLink Funding Corp.
Commercial loan pass-through certificates series 1999-LTL-1 due
1/22/2026
                                        Rating
Class             Identifier            To            From
C                 63859CCJ0             AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)
D                 63859CCK7             AAA (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
E                 63859CCL5             BBB (sf)      BB+ (sf)
F                 63859CCM3             B+ (sf)       B (sf)
X                 63859CCG6             AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)


NEUBERGER BERMAN XXIII: Moody's Rates Class E Notes '(P)Ba3'
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to five
classes of notes to be issued by Neuberger Berman CLO XXIII, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

  $248,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
   2027, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)
  $52,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2027,

   Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)
  $26,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes due 2027, Assigned (P)A2 (sf)
  $25,000,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes due 2027, Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)
  $17,000,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes due 2027, Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

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

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

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Neuberger Berman XXIII is a managed cash flow CLO.  The issued
notes will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first
lien senior secured corporate loans.  At least 96% of the portfolio
must consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible
investments, and up to 4% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans.  Moody's expects the portfolio to
be approximately 80% ramped as of the closing date.

Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC 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 4.6 year reinvestment period.
Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments
and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets, subject to certain
restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue subordinated
notes.

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in October 2016.

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

Par amount: $400,000,000
Diversity Score: 50
Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2790
Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.75%
Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%
Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.75%
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
October 2016.

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 2790 to 3209)
Rating Impact in Rating Notches
Class A Notes: 0
Class B Notes: -2
Class C Notes: -2
Class D Notes: -1
Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2790 to 3627)
Rating Impact in Rating Notches
Class A Notes: -1
Class B Notes: -3
Class C Notes: -4
Class D Notes: -2
Class E Notes: -1


OCP CLO 2016-12: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to classes A through D of
OCP CLO 2016-12 Ltd./OCP CLO 2016-12 LLC's $500.50 million
floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term
loans (i.e., those rated 'BB+' or lower).

The ratings reflect:

   -- 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.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

OCP CLO 2016-12 Ltd./OCP CLO 2016-12 LLC

Class                            Rating          Amount
                                                (mil. $)

A-1                              AAA (sf)        341.00
A-2                              AA (sf)          71.50
B (deferrable)                   A (sf)           38.50
C (deferrable)                   BBB (sf)         27.50
D (deferrable)                   BB (sf)          22.00
Subordinated notes (deferrable)  NR               57.25

NR--Not rated.



OCTAGON INVESTMENT 28: Moody's Gives Ba2 Rating on 2 Tranches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by Octagon Investment Partners 28, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

   -- US$434,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
      due 2027 (the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
      Aaa (sf)

   -- US$79,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
      due 2027 (the "Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned

      Aa1 (sf)

   -- US$19,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due
      2027 (the "Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1

      (sf)

   -- US$49,000,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating
      Rate Notes due 2027 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating

      Assigned A2 (sf)

   -- US$35,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating
      Rate Notes due 2027 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating

      Assigned Baa2 (sf)

   -- US$16,500,000 Class E-1 Secured Deferrable Junior Floating
      Rate Notes due 2027 (the "Class E-1 Notes"), Definitive
      Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

   -- US$11,500,000 Class E-2 Secured Deferrable Junior Floating
      Rate Notes due 2027 (the "Class E-2 Notes"), Definitive
      Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

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

Octagon 28 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans
and unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 60% ramped as
of the closing date.

Octagon Credit Investors, 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 4.5 year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest
unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit
risk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue subordinated
notes.

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in October 2016.

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

   -- Par amount: $700,000,000

   -- Diversity Score: 60

   -- Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2675

   -- Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.90%

   -- Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

   -- Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.50%

   -- Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.0 years

Methodology Underlying 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:

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 2675 to 3077)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A Notes: 0

   -- Class B-1 Notes: -1

   -- Class B-2 Notes: -1

   -- Class C Notes: -1

   -- Class D Notes: -1

   -- Class E-1 Notes: 0

   -- Class E-2 Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2675 to 3478)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A Notes: 0

   -- Class B-1 Notes: -3

   -- Class B-2 Notes: -3

   -- Class C Notes: -3

   -- Class D Notes: -2

   -- Class E-1 Notes: -1

   -- Class E-2 Notes: -1



PPLUS TRUST RRD-1: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Tranches to 'B-'
----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on PPlus Trust Series
RRD-1's $60 million class A and B certificates to 'B+' from 'BB-'
and removed them from CreditWatch, where they were placed with
negative implications on Sept. 21, 2015.

S&P's ratings on the certificates are dependent on its rating on
the underlying security, R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.'s 6.625%
debentures due April 15, 2029, which S&P lowered to 'B+' from
'BB-' on Oct. 6, 2016, and removed from CreditWatch, where S&P had
placed it with negative implications on Aug. 4, 2015.

S&P may take subsequent rating actions on these certificates due to
changes in its rating on the underlying security.

RATINGS LIST

PPlus Trust Series RRD-1
                     Rating
Class            To          From
A                B+          BB-
B                B+          BB-



PRESTIGE AUTO 2016-2: DBRS Assigns (P)BB Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. assigned provisional ratings to the following classes
issued by Prestige Auto Receivables Trust 2016-2 (2016-2):

   -- $54,000,000 Class A-1 rated R-1 (high) (sf)

   -- $129,310,000 Class A-2 rated AAA (sf)

   -- $32,820,000 Class A-3 rated AAA (sf)

   -- $33,250,000 Class B rated AA (sf)

   -- $48,030,000 Class C rated A (sf)

   -- $37,870,000 Class D rated BBB (sf)

   -- $8,320,000 Class E 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.

   -- Credit enhancement is in the form of overcollateralization
      (OC), subordination, amounts held in the reserve fund and
      excess spread. Credit enhancement levels are sufficient to
      support the DBRS-projected expected cumulative net loss
      assumption 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
      ratings address the payment of timely interest on a monthly
      basis and the payment of principal by the legal final    
      maturity date.

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

   -- DBRS has performed an operational review of Prestige
      Financial Services, Inc. (Prestige), and considers the
      entity to be an acceptable originator and servicer of
      subprime automobile loan receivables with an acceptable
      backup servicer.

   -- The Prestige management team has extensive experience. It
      has been lending to the subprime auto sector since 1994 and
      has considerable experience lending to Chapter 7 and 13
      obligors.

   -- The credit quality of the collateral and performance of
      Prestige’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 Prestige,
      that the trust has a valid first-priority security interest
      in the assets and the consistency with DBRS’s “Legal
      Criteria for U.S. Structured Finance” methodology.

This is the 18th transaction Prestige has issued in the
asset-backed securities (ABS) term or conduit market since 1996.
All term ABS transactions issued between 2001 and 2007 were wrapped
by a monoline insurer while all term ABS transactions issued since
2009 were senior-subordinate transactions. All of the transactions,
except for the PART 2013-1, 2014-1, 2015-1 and 2016-1 term
securitizations, have paid off in full without experiencing an
Event of Default.

Initial Class A credit enhancement of 42.50% will include a reserve
account (1.00% of the initial aggregate principal balance, funded
at inception and non-declining), OC of 7.00% of the initial pool
balance and subordination of 34.50%. Initial Class B credit
enhancement of 33.50% includes the reserve account of 1.00%, OC of
7.00% and subordination of 25.50%. Initial Class C credit
enhancement of 20.50% includes the reserve account of 1.00%, OC of
7.00% and subordination of 12.50%. Initial Class D credit
enhancement of 10.25% includes the reserve account 1.00%, OC of
7.00% and subordination of 2.25%. Initial Class E credit
enhancement of 8.00% is from the reserve account of 1.00% and OC of
7.00%.


PRESTIGE AUTO 2016-2: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Prestige
Auto Receivables Trust 2016-2's $343.6 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2016-2.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 13,
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 48.9%, 43.4%, 34.5%,
      24.7%, and 21.4% of credit support for the class A, B, C, D,

      and E notes, respectively (based on stressed cash flow
      scenarios, including excess spread), which provides coverage

      of more than 3.50x, 3.00x, 2.30x, 1.75x, and 1.50x S&P's
      13.00%-13.75% expected cumulative net loss range for the
      class A, B, C, D, and E notes, respectively.  These credit
      support levels are commensurate with the assigned
      preliminary 'AAA (sf)', 'AA (sf)', 'A (sf)', 'BBB (sf)', and

      'BB (sf)' ratings on the class A, B, C, D, and E notes.

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate, or 'BBB', stress
      scenario, its preliminary ratings on the class A, B, C, D,
      and E notes would not decline by more than one rating
      category (all else being equal).  These potential rating
      movements are consistent with S&P's credit stability
      criteria, which outline the outer bound of credit
      deterioration equal to a one-category downgrade within the
      first year for 'AAA' and 'AA' rated securities, and a two-
      category downgrade within the first year for 'A' through
      'BB' rated securities under moderate stress conditions.

   -- The credit enhancement in the form of subordination,
      overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess spread.

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

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

   -- Prestige Financial Services Inc.'s securitization
      performance history since 2001.

   -- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

                     PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Prestige Auto Receivables Trust 2016-2

Class    Rating        Type          Interest      Amount
                                     rate        (mil. $)

A-1      A-1+ (sf)     Senior        Fixed          54.00
A-2      AAA (sf)      Senior        Fixed         129.31
A-3      AAA (sf)      Senior        Fixed          32.82
B        AA (sf)       Subordinate   Fixed          33.25
C        A (sf)        Subordinate   Fixed          48.03
D        BBB (sf)      Subordinate   Fixed          37.87
E        BB (sf)       Subordinate   Fixed           8.32


PRIMUS CLO II: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on these notes
issued by Primus CLO II, Ltd.:

  $31,500,000 Class C Third Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes Due July 15, 2021, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on
   July 30, 2015, Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on these notes:

  $302,500,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
   July 15, 2021, (current outstanding balance of $68,506,846),
   Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 30, 2015, Affirmed
   Aaa (sf)

  $8,500,000 Class B Second Priority Floating Rate Notes Due
   July 15, 2021, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 30, 2015,
   Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

  $10,500,000 Class D Fourth Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes Due July 15, 2021, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on
   July 30, 2015, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

  $15,500,000 Class E Fifth Priority Deferrable Floating Rate
   Notes Due July 15, 2021, (current outstanding balance of
   $14,645,606), Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on July 30, 2015,
   Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Primus CLO II, Ltd., issued in July 2007, is a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior secured
loans.  The transaction's reinvestment period ended in July 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 April 2016.  The Class A
notes have been paid down by approximately 51% or $71.8 million
since then.  Based on the trustee's 15 Oct 2016 report, the OC
ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, Class D and Class E notes are
reported at 163.41%, 124.12%, 114.90% and 104.13%, respectively,
versus April 2016 levels of 143.12%, 118.12%, 111.62% and 103.66%,
respectively.  The October OC ratios do not include the $22.5
million payment to the Class A notes on the October 2016 payment
date.

Nevertheless, the credit quality of the portfolio has deteriorated
since April 2016.  Based on the trustee's October 2016 report, the
weighted average rating factor is currently 2629 compared to 2492
and the Caa exposure is 10.74% compared to 8.35%.

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) 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.  Moody's ran scenarios using a range of

     liquidation value assumptions.  However, actual long-dated
     asset exposures and prevailing market prices and conditions
     at the CLO's maturity will drive the deal's actual losses, if

     any, from long-dated assets.

  7) Exposure to 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 $4.4 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% (2318)
Class A: 0
Class B: 0
Class C: +2
Class D: +3
Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3478)
Class A: 0
Class B: 0
Class C: -2
Class D: -1
Class E: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:
Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in "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 $163.1 million, defaulted par
of $0.40 million, a weighted average default probability of 18.08%
(implying a WARF of 2898), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 46.37%, a diversity score of 48 and a weighted average
spread of 3.51% (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.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES 2000-C1: Moody’s Affirms C Rating on M Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating on one class and
downgraded the rating on one class of Prudential Securities Secured
Financing Corporation, Series Key 2000-C1 as follows:

   -- Cl. M, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct 28, 2015 Affirmed  

      C (sf)

   -- Cl. X, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Oct 28, 2015
      Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on the P&I class, class M, was affirmed because the
class has already experienced a 98% realized loss as result of
previously liquidated loans.

The rating on the IO class was downgraded, because it no longer
accrues nor is expected to receive any future interest payments.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 0% of the
current balance. Moody's does not anticipate losses from the
remaining collateral in the current environment. However, over the
remaining life of the transaction, losses may emerge from macro
stresses to the environment and changes in collateral performance.
Our ratings reflect the potential for future losses under varying
levels of stress. Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses
is now 3.5% of the original pooled balance, the same as at the last
review.

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in October 2015.

DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's analysis used the excel-based Large Loan Model. The large
loan model derives credit enhancement levels based on an
aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds derived from Moody's
loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to determining proceeds
include leverage, loan structure and property type. Moody's also
further adjusts these aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits
associated with loan level diversity and other concentrations and
correlations.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the September 16, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99.9% to $575
thousand from $816 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by one mortgage loan that has defeased and is
secured by US government securities.

Twenty-one loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $28.4 million (for an average loss
severity of 20.9%).



RESOURCE CAPITAL 2015-CRE3: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Cl. E Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited confirmed the Floating Rate Notes issued by Resource
Capital Corp. 2015-CRE3, Ltd. as follows:

   -- Class A at AAA (sf)

   -- Class A-S at AAA (sf)

   -- Class B at AA (low) (sf)

   -- Class C at A (low) (sf)

   -- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)

   -- Class E at BB (low) (sf)

   -- Class F at B (low) (sf)

All trends are Stable. Classes E and F are non-offered classes.

The rating confirmations reflect the overall stable performance of
the transaction, which has experienced a collateral reduction of
22.0% as of the September 2016 remittance. At issuance, the
collateral consisted of 20 floating-rate mortgage loans secured by
20 transitional commercial, multifamily and hospitality properties.
As of the September 2016 remittance, four loans have repaid,
including the recent payoff of The Avenues Apartments loan, which
had an outstanding principal balance of $15.7 million. Based on
recently reported financials and occupancy rates, many of the
remaining collateral properties are approaching or have reached
stabilization, as the respective borrowers have successfully
executed their respective business plans. Ten of the remaining
loans are pari passu participations that have future funding
components to be allocated for property renovations and/or leasing
costs to aid in property stabilization. As of the September 2016
remittance, there are no loans in special servicing and four loans
on the servicer’s watchlist, representing 33.4% of the current
pool balance. The two most pivotal loans on the servicer’s
watchlist are detailed below.

The Betsy Hotel loan (Pros ID#2, 17.3% of the current pool balance)
is secured by two hotels, the 61-key Betsy Hotel (the Betsy) and
the 67-key Carlton Hotel South Beach (the Carlton), both located in
South Beach’s Art Deco District in Miami, Florida. The loan was
added to the watchlist as a result of the ongoing renovations at
the property, which have contributed to a decline in cash flow. At
issuance, the sponsor’s business plan included plans to take the
Carlton property off-line for renovations beginning in March 2015
to renovate the interiors and common areas to match the Betsy.
Following the renovation, the two hotels will operate as one
136-room property that will be named “The Betsy.”

According to the servicer’s August 2016 update, the Carlton
renovation is now deemed ahead of schedule at approximately 63.0%
complete, and construction of a sky bridge connecting the two
hotels is underway. The grand reopening is targeted for November
2016. Despite the operational disruptions from the ongoing
renovations, the Betsy continues to perform above its competitive
set, with occupancy, average daily rate and revenue per available
room metrics of 79.9%, $386.62 and $294.69, respectively, according
to the June 2016 Smith Travel Research (STR) report. Although the
loan reported a Q2 2016 debt service coverage ratio DSCR of -1.49
times (x), which has further declined from the YE2015 DSCR of
-0.43x, given the stable performance of the operational portion of
the collateral, DBRS expects cash flows to improve as renovations
are completed, with units coming online and available for booking
later this year. In addition, the loan benefits from a debt service
reserve with a current balance of $1.1 million as of September
2016, which is being used to fund shortfalls through the
renovations.

The Parkway Square Shopping Center loan (Pros ID#7, 3.9% of the
current pool balance) is secured by a community shopping center
located in College Station, Texas, approximately two miles south of
Texas A&M University. The sponsor has owned the property since 2004
and contributed $1.28 million in cash to close for the subject
loan. The property is situated along an established retail corridor
and was formerly anchored by Kroger (29.5% of the net rentable
area), but the tenant vacated ahead of its lease expiration of
September 2016. As such, occupancy is estimated to have declined to
59.8%. Kroger was paying a low gross rental rate of $4.00 per
square foot (psf), with no common area maintenance charges billed;
at issuance, the appraiser had estimated a base rental rate of
approximately $6.50 psf for the space, indicating potential upside
if Kroger were to vacate. According to CoStar, properties within a
five-mile radius of the subject reported an average rental rate of
$11.65 triple net, a vacancy rate of 19.9% and an availability rate
of 23.8% compared with the subject’s average rental rate of $7.20
psf and vacancy rate of 40.2%.

The departure of Kroger and its historically low sales (the most
recent reporting provided at issuance showed sales of $347 psf in
2014) was likely the result of high competition in the market that
included H-E-B, a popular grocery chain in Texas that is located
less than one mile north of the subject. The borrower has advised
that the space is being marketed for lease, but no solid prospects
have emerged thus far. This loan was structured with an initial
future funding commitment of $2.3 million, with approximately $1.2
million remaining as of September 2016. Those remaining funds may
only be drawn for tenant improvements and leasing commissions
related to re-tenanting Kroger’s space. The terms of release
require that the loan is able to achieve a loan-to-value ratio no
higher than 70.0% based on a new appraised value at the time of the
draw. Given the soft market and stiff grocery competition in the
area, DBRS expects there will be difficulty re-leasing the entire
space any time soon and, as such, has modeled the loan with a
significantly increased probability of default for the purposes of
this review.


ROSEDALE LTD: Moody's Raises Ratings on $16.5MM Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on these notes
issued by Rosedale CLO Ltd.:

  $6,500,000 Class D-1 Fourth Priority Mezzanine Deferrable
   Floating Rate Notes Due 2021, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously
   on April 1, 2015, Upgraded to A3 (sf)

  $10,000,000 Class D-2 Fourth Priority Mezzanine Deferrable Step-
   Up Notes Due 2021, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on April 1,
   2015, Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on these notes:

  $22,000,000 Class B Second Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate

   Notes Due 2021 (current outstanding balance of $9,068,088),
   Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on April 1, 2015, Affirmed
   Aaa (sf)

  $15,500,000 Class C Third Priority Senior Secured Deferrable
   Floating Rate Notes Due 2021, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on
   April 1, 2015, Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $9,000,000 Class E Fifth Priority Mezzanine Deferrable Floating
   Rate Notes Due 2021, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on April 1,
   2015, Affirmed B1 (sf)

Rosedale CLO Ltd., issued in June 2006, is a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior secured
loans.  The transaction's reinvestment period ended in July 2011.

                         RATINGS RATIONALE

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization (OC) ratios since October 2015.  The Class A
notes have been paid in full and the Class B notes have been paid
down by approximately 58.8% or $12.9 million since that time. Based
on the trustee's September 2016 report, the OC ratios for the Class
A/B, Class C and Class D notes are reported at 558.45%, 206.12% and
123.31%, respectively, versus October 2015 levels of 218.97%,
153.83% and 116.83%, respectively.

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) 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 $2.3 million or 4.8% 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% (2358)
Class B: 0
Class C: 0
Class D-1: +2
Class D-2: +2
Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3538)
Class B: 0
Class C: 0
Class D-1: -1
Class D-2: -1
Class E: 0

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:
Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in "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 $51.2 million, defaulted par
of $4.4 million, a weighted average default probability of 18.79%
(implying a WARF of 2948), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 47.29%, a diversity score of 18 and a weighted average
spread of 3.65% (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.


SCG TRUST 2013-SRP1: S&P Affirms 'BB-' Rating on Class E Certs.
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its ratings on six classes of
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from SCG Trust
2013-SRP1, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS)
transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's analysis of the transaction
primarily using its criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS
transactions.  S&P's analysis included a review of the five malls
that serve as collateral for its transaction.  They are the:

   -- Franklin Park Mall, a 1.27 million-sq.-ft. enclosed regional

      mall, of which 670,075 sq. ft. serves as collateral;

   -- West Covina Mall, a 1.23 million-sq.-ft. enclosed regional
      mall, of which 652,659 sq. ft. serves as collateral;

   -- Parkway Mall, a 1.32 million-sq.-ft. enclosed regional mall,

      of which 948,406 sq. ft. serves as collateral;

   -- Capital Mall, a 766,637-sq.-ft. enclosed regional mall and
      lifestyle center, all of which serves as collateral; and

   -- Great Northern Mall, a 1.24 million-sq.-ft. enclosed
      regional mall, of which 606,126-sq.-ft. serves as
      collateral.

The properties collectively secure a $760.0 million floating-rate
interest-only loan that has a three-year initial term and two
one-year extension options.  The loan is scheduled to mature in
November 2016, and the borrower recently requested a modification
of certain provisions in the loan agreement dealing with one of the
aforementioned extension options.  There is no additional debt in
place, nor is additional debt allowed to be incurred in the future.


The analysis of stand-alone (single borrower) transactions is
predominantly a recovery-based approach that assumes a loan
default.  Using this approach, S&P's property-level analysis
included a revaluation of the regional malls that secures the
mortgage loan in the trust.  S&P also considered the
servicer-reported net operating income (NOI) and occupancy for the
past three years.  Reported NOI decreased 4.7% to $76.6 million
from $80.3 million in 2014, primarily due to challenges retaining
and leasing new tenants and managing certain expenses.  Despite
these challenges, the properties have maintained strong occupancy
rates, albeit along with above-average occupancy costs, which S&P
accounted for in its analysis.  In addition, the sponsor has
recently executed new leases throughout the portfolio that will
result in contractual base rental revenue increases in excess of
$3.8 million compared to the trailing 12 months ended Aug. 31,
2016.  This increase in revenue, along with the sponsor's efforts
to manage expenses, per the servicer, should improve the
portfolio's performance outlook.  However, if future leasing
challenges and expense management issues persist, S&P may revisit
and revise its sustainable net cash flow (NCF) and value.  S&P
derived its sustainable NCF, which S&P divided by a 7.43% S&P
Global Ratings' capitalization rate, along with certain value
deductions, to determine our expected-case value.  This yielded an
overall S&P Global Ratings' loan-to-value ratio and debt service
coverage (DSC) of 83.5% and 2.12x, respectively, on the trust
balance.

S&P based its analysis partly on a review of the individual
property's historical NOI for the 12 months ended Aug. 31, 2016,
Dec. 31, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2014, and the June 30, 2016, rent roll
provided by the master servicer to determine S&P's opinion of a
sustainable cash flow for the properties.  The master servicer,
Wells Fargo Bank N.A., reported a DSC of 4.00x on the trust balance
for the 12 months ended Aug. 30, 2016, and consolidated occupancy
was 95.3% according to the June 30, 2016, rent roll.

S&P also considered the deal structure and liquidity available to
the trust.  According to the transaction documents, the borrowers
will pay the special servicing fees, work-out fees, liquidation
fees, and costs and expenses incurred from appraisals and
inspections conducted by the special servicer.  To date, the trust
has not incurred any principal losses.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

SCG Trust 2013-SRP1
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

Class     Rating
A         AAA (sf)
A-J       AAA (sf)
B         AA- (sf)
C         A- (sf)
D         BBB- (sf)
E         BB- (sf)


SDART 2016-3: Fitch Assigns BB Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned these ratings and Outlooks to the notes
issued from Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-3:

   -- $247,000,000 class A-1 notes 'F1+sf';
   -- $374,000,000 class A-2 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $160,290,000 class A-3 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $183,010,000 class B notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $197,200,000 class C notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $108,310,000 class D notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $74,700,000 class E notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

Declining Credit Quality: 2016-3 is backed by collateral relatively
consistent with the 2014-2016 pools, with a weighted average (WA)
FICO score of 600 and internal WA loss forecast score (LFS) of 555.
However, obligors with no FICO scores increased to the highest
level to date at 18.6% of the pool.  Fitch considers the growing
no-FICO originations a negative trend in light of the weaker loss
performance observed for these obligors.

Increased Extended-Term Contracts: The concentration of 73-75 month
loans increased to 7.9% from 4.7% in 2016-2, and 60+ month loans
account for 92.2% of the pool, towards the higher end of the range
historically for the platform.  Consistent with prior Fitch-rated
transactions, an additional stress was applied to the 73-75 month
loans when deriving the loss proxy.

Weakening Performance: Although within range of the 2010-2012
performance, recent 2013-2015 portfolio and securitization losses
are tracking higher.  Loss frequency has been driven higher by
looser underwriting, while loss severity has risen due to slightly
weaker wholesale vehicle values and early-stage defaults on
extended term collateral.  Fitch expects the 2015-2016 vintages to
perform relatively in line with 2013-2014, if not weaker.

Sufficient Credit Enhancement: The cash flow distribution is a
sequential pay structure.  Initial hard credit enhancement (CE)
totals 49.70% for the class A notes, down slightly from 49.85% in
recent transactions.  Excess spread is initially 10.55% per annum,
consistent with recent transactions.

Stable Corporate Health: SC's recent financial results have been
weaker due to higher losses on the managed portfolio.  However, the
company has been profitable since 2007 and Fitch currently rates
Santander, SC's majority owner, 'A-'/'F2'/Outlook Stable.

Consistent Origination/Underwriting/Servicing: SC demonstrates
adequate abilities as originator, underwriter, and servicer as
evidenced by historical portfolio and securitization performance.
Fitch deems SC capable to service this series.

Legal Structure Integrity: The legal structure of the transaction
should provide that a bankruptcy of SC would not impair the
timeliness of payments on the securities.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults and loss
severity on defaulted receivables could produce loss levels higher
than the base case.  This in turn could result in Fitch taking
negative rating actions on the notes.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-3 to increased credit
losses over the life of the transaction.  Fitch's analysis found
that the transaction displays some sensitivity to increased
defaults and credit losses.  This shows a potential downgrade of
one or two categories under Fitch's moderate (1.5x base case loss)
scenario, especially for the subordinate bonds.  The notes could
experience downgrades of three or more rating categories,
potentially leading to distressed ratings (below 'Bsf') or possibly
default, under Fitch's severe (2x base case loss) scenario.

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

Fitch was provided with third-party due diligence information from
Deloitte and Touche, LLP.  The third-party due diligence focused on
comparing or recomputing certain information with respect to 150
loans from the statistical data file.  Fitch considered this
information in its analysis and the findings did not have an impact
on its analysis/conclusions.


SDART 2016-3: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to the
notes issued by Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-3
(SDART 2016-3). This is the third SDART auto loan transaction of
the year for Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC; unrated). The notes
are backed by a pool of retail automobile loan contracts primarily
originated by SC, who is also the servicer and administrator for
the transaction.

The complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-3

   -- $247,000,000, 0.80000%, Class A-1 Notes, Definitive Rating
      Assigned P-1 (sf)

   -- $374,000,000, 1.34%, Class A-2 Notes, Definitive Rating
      Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- $160,290,000, 1.50%, Class A-3 Notes, Definitive Rating
      Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- $183,010,000, 1.89%, Class B Notes, Definitive Rating
      Assigned Aa1 (sf)

   -- $197,200,000, 2.46%, Class C Notes, Definitive Rating
      Assigned Aa3 (sf)

   -- $108,310,000, 2.80%, Class D Notes, Definitive Rating
      Assigned Baa2 (sf)

   -- $74,700,000, 4.29%, Class E Notes, Definitive Rating
      Assigned Ba2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings are based on the quality of the underlying collateral
and its expected performance, the strength of the capital
structure, and the experience and expertise of SC as the servicer.

The definitive rating for the Class C notes, Aa3 (sf), is one notch
higher than its provisional rating, (P)A1 (sf). In addition, the
definitive rating for the Class E notes, Ba2 (sf), is one notch
higher than its provisional rating, (P)Ba3 (sf). These differences
are the result of (1) the transaction closing with a lower weighted
average cost of funds (WAC) than Moody's modeled when the
provisional ratings were assigned and (2) the percent of the Class
A-2 notes that are floating rate, which are subject to a stressed
interest rate assumption is zero, lower than Moody's modeled when
the provisional ratings were assigned. The WAC assumptions and the
floating-rate percent of the Class A-2 notes, as well as other
structural features, were provided by the issuer.

Moody's median cumulative net loss expectation for the 2016-3 pool
is 17.0% and the Aaa level is 49.0%. The Aaa level is the level of
credit enhancement consistent with a Aaa (sf) rating. Moody's based
its cumulative net loss expectation and Aaa level on an analysis of
the credit quality of the underlying collateral; the historical
performance of similar collateral, including securitization
performance and managed portfolio performance; the ability of SC to
perform the servicing functions; and current expectations for the
macroeconomic environment during the life of the transaction.

At closing, the Class A notes, Class B notes, Class C notes, Class
D notes, and Class E notes benefit from 49.70%, 37.45%, 24.25%,
17.00% and 12.00% of hard credit enhancement, respectively. Hard
credit enhancement for the notes consists of a combination of
overcollateralization, a non-declining reserve account, and
subordination, except for the Class E notes, which do not benefit
from subordination. The notes will also benefit from excess
spread.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Auto Loan- and Lease-Backed ABS" published in
October 2016.

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

Up

Moody's could upgrade the notes if, given current expectations of
portfolio losses, levels of credit enhancement are consistent with
higher ratings. In sequential pay structures, such as the one in
this transaction, credit enhancement grows as a percentage of the
collateral balance as collections pay down senior notes.
Prepayments and interest collections directed toward note principal
payments will accelerate this build of enhancement. Moody's
expectation of pool losses could decline as a result of a lower
number of obligor defaults or appreciation in the value of the
vehicles securing an obligor's promise of payment. Portfolio losses
also depend greatly on the US job market, the market for used
vehicles, and changes in servicing practices.

Down

Moody's could downgrade the notes if, given current expectations of
portfolio losses, levels of credit enhancement are consistent with
lower ratings. Credit enhancement could decline if excess spread is
not sufficient to cover losses in a given month. Moody's
expectation of pool losses could rise as a result of a higher
number of obligor defaults or deterioration in the value of the
vehicles securing an obligor's promise of payment. Portfolio losses
also depend greatly on the US job market, the market for used
vehicles, and poor servicing. Other reasons for worse-than-expected
performance include error on the part of transaction parties,
inadequate transaction governance, and fraud. Additionally, Moody's
could downgrade the Class A-1 short-term rating following a
significant slowdown in principal collections that could result
from, among other things, high delinquencies or a servicer
disruption that impacts obligor's payments.



STACR 2016-HQ: DBRS Assigns Prov. B Rating on Cl. M-3A Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. assigned the following provisional ratings to the
Structured Agency Credit Risk Debt Notes, Series 2016-HQA4 (STACR
2016-HQA4) notes (the Notes) issued by Freddie Mac (the Issuer):

   -- $125.0 million Class M-1 at A (low) (sf)

   -- $125.0 million Class M-2 at BBB (low) (sf)

   -- $125.0 million Class M-2F at BBB (low) (sf)

   -- $125.0 million Class M-2I at BBB (low) (sf)

   -- $105.0 million Class M-3A at B (sf)

   -- $105.0 million Class M-3AF at B (sf)

   -- $105.0 million Class M-3AI at B (sf)

Classes M-2F, M-2I, M-3AF and M-3AI are Modifiable and Combinable
STACR Notes (MAC Notes). Holders of the Class M-2 and Class M-3A
notes can exchange all or part of such classes for the related
classes of MAC Notes and vice versa. Classes M-2I and M-3AI are
interest-only MAC Notes.

The A (low) (sf), BBB (low) (sf) and B (sf) ratings reflect 4.275%,
3.050% and 2.025% of credit enhancement, respectively. Other than
the specified classes above, DBRS does not rate any other classes
in this transaction.

The Notes represent unsecured general obligations of the Issuer.
The Notes are subject to the credit and principal payment risk of a
certain reference pool (the Reference Pool) of residential mortgage
loans held in various Freddie Mac-guaranteed mortgage-backed
securities.

The Reference Pool consists of 60,173 30-year fully amortizing
first-lien fixed-rate mortgage loans underwritten to a full
documentation standard with original loan-to-value (LTV) ratios
greater than 80% and less than or equal to 97%. The majority of the
mortgages in the Reference Pool have active mortgage insurance (MI)
provided by various mortgage companies. For this transaction, any
amount that Freddie Mac reports is payable under any effective MI
policy will be included in the net liquidation proceeds
irrespective of Freddie Mac’s receipt of such amounts from the
related MI company. Payments to the Notes will be determined by the
credit performance of the Reference Pool.

Cash flow from the Reference Pool will not be used to make any
payment to the STACR 2016-HQA4 noteholders; instead, Freddie Mac
will be responsible for making monthly interest payments at the
note rate and periodic principal payments on the Notes in
accordance with the actual principal payments it collects from the
Reference Pool.

STACR 2016-HQA4 is the sixth above-80% LTV transaction in the STACR
series where note writedowns are based on actual realized losses
and not on a predetermined set of loss severities. The maturity
dates for this transaction have been extended to 12.5 years
compared with a 10.0-year maturity in prior STACR transactions with
a predetermined set of loss severities.

The originators for the Reference Pool are Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(Wells Fargo, 15.6%), US Bank, N.A. (US Bank, 7.1%), Quicken Loans,
Inc. (Quicken, 5.2%) and various other originators, each comprising
less than 5.0% of the Reference Pool.

The loans in the Reference Pool will be serviced by Wells Fargo
(15.6%), US Bank (8.6%), Quicken (5.2%) and various other
servicers, each comprising less than 5.0% of the Reference Pool.
U.S. Bank National Association will act as the Global Agent.
Freddie Mac will act as the Master Servicer.

DBRS notes the following strengths and challenges for this
transaction:

Strengths:

   -- Seller (or Lender)/Servicer approval process and quality
      control platform,

   -- Well-diversified Reference Pool,

   -- Strong alignment of interest,

   -- Strong structural protections and

   -- Extensive performance history.

Challenges:

   -- High LTVs in Reference Pool,

   -- Borrower-Paid Mortgage Insurance termination or
      cancellation,

   -- Unsecured obligation of Freddie Mac,

   -- Representation and warranties framework and

   -- Limited third-party due diligence.

These strengths, challenges and their mitigating factors are
discussed in more detail in the related presale report.



STACR 2016-HQA4: Fitch to Rate 4 Tranches 'BB'
----------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate Freddie Mac's risk-transfer
transaction, Structured Agency Credit Risk Debt Notes Series
2016-HQA4 (STACR 2016-HQA4) as:

   -- $125,000,000 class M-1 notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $125,000,000 class M-2 notes 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $125,000,000 class M-2F exchangeable notes 'BBB-sf'; Outlook

      Stable;
   -- $125,000,000 class M-2I notional exchangeable notes
     'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $105,000,000 class M-3A notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $105,000,000 class M-3AF exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
      Stable;
   -- $105,000,000 class M-3AI notional exchangeable notes 'BBsf';

      Outlook Stable;
   -- $105,000,000 class M-3B notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $210,000,000 class M-3 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
      Stable.

These classes will not be rated by Fitch:

   -- $13,085,068,855 class A-H reference tranche;
   -- $44,621,263 class M-1H reference tranche;
   -- $44,621,263 class M-2H reference tranche;
   -- $36,927,995 class M-3AH reference tranche;
   -- $36,927,996 class M-3BH reference tranche;
   -- $18,000,000 class B notes;
   -- $120,466,337 class B-H reference tranche.

The 'BBBsf' rating for the M-1 notes reflects the 4.27%
subordination provided by the 1.23% class M-2 notes, the 1.02%
class M-3A notes, the 1.03% class M-3B and the 1.00% class B notes.
The 'BBB-sf' rating for the M-2 notes reflects the 3.05%
subordination provided by the 1.02% class M-3A notes, the 1.03%
class M-3B notes and the 1.00% class B notes.  The notes are
general unsecured obligations of Freddie Mac ('AAA'/Outlook Stable)
subject to the credit and principal payment risk of a pool of
certain residential mortgage loans held in various Freddie
Mac-guaranteed MBS.

STACR 2016-HQA4 represents Freddie Mac's 13th risk transfer
transaction applying actual loan loss severity (LS) issued as part
of the Federal Housing Finance Agency's Conservatorship Strategic
Plan for 2013-2017 for each of the government-sponsored enterprises
(GSEs) to demonstrate the viability of multiple types of
risk-transfer transactions involving single-family mortgages.

The objective of the transaction is to transfer credit risk from
Freddie Mac to private investors with respect to a $13.85 billion
pool of mortgage loans currently held in previously issued MBS
guaranteed by Freddie Mac where principal repayment of the notes is
subject to the performance of a reference pool of mortgage loans.
As loans liquidate or other credit events occur, the outstanding
principal balance of the debt notes will be reduced by the actual
loan's LS percentage related to those credit events, which includes
borrower's delinquent interest.

While the transaction structure simulates the behavior and credit
risk of traditional RMBS senior-subordinate securities, Freddie Mac
will be responsible for making monthly payments of interest and
principal to investors.  Because of the counterparty dependence on
Freddie Mac, Fitch's expected rating on the M-1, M-2, M-2F, M-2I,
M-3A, M-3AF, M-3AI, M-3B and M-3 notes will be based on the lower
of: the quality of the mortgage loan reference pool and credit
enhancement (CE) available through subordination, and Freddie Mac's
Issuer Default Rating.  The M-1, M-2, M-3A, M-3B and B notes will
be issued as uncapped LIBOR-based floaters and will carry a
12.5-year legal final maturity.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

High-Quality Mortgage Pool (Positive): The reference pool consists
of 60,173 30-year, fixed-rate fully amortizing loans totalling
$13.85 billion with strong credit profiles and low leverage,
acquired by Freddie Mac between Jan. 1, 2016, and March 31, 2016.
The pool has a weighted average (WA) original combined
loan-to-value (CLTV) of 91.8%, WA debt-to-income (DTI) ratio of
35.7% and credit score of 746.  Third-party, loan-level due
diligence was conducted on approximately 40% of Freddie Mac's
random quality control sample of 2,135 loans (the sample represents
about 1.4% of the total reference pool).  Fitch believes the
results of the review generally indicate strong underwriting
controls.

Mortgage Insurance Guaranteed by Freddie Mac (Positive): 99.9% of
the loans are covered either by borrower paid mortgage insurance
(BPMI) or lender-paid MI (LPMI).  Loans without MI coverage are
either originated in New York, where the appraised value was used
to determine that the LTV was below 81%, or the loans were part of
the HomeSteps Financing program.

Freddie Mac will guarantee the MI coverage amount, which will
typically be the MI coverage percentage multiplied by the sum of
the unpaid principal balance as of the date of the default, up to
36 months of delinquent interest, taxes and maintenance expenses.
While the Freddie Mac guarantee allows for credit to be given to
MI, Fitch applied a haircut to the amount of BPMI available due to
the automatic termination provision as required by the Homeowners
Protection Act, when the loan balance is first scheduled to reach
78%.

Increased LTV (Concern): Starting with this transaction, Freddie
Mac has increased its LTV parameter on its greater than 80% LTV
credit risk transfer transactions to include loans with LTVs up to
97% from 95%.  Fitch believes the increase in credit risk to the
overall pool is modest due to the relatively small size of the
loans included.  Approximately 1.4% of the pool has an original LTV
greater than 95%.

Actual Loss Severities (Neutral): This will be Freddie Mac's sixth
actual loss risk transfer transaction in which losses borne by the
noteholders will not be based on a fixed loss severity (LS)
schedule on loans with LTVs of over 80%.  The notes in this
transaction will experience losses realized at the time of
liquidation, which will include both principal and delinquent
interest.

12.5-Year Hard Maturity (Positive): M-1, M-2, M-3A, M-3B and B
notes benefit from a 12.5-year legal final maturity.  Thus, any
credit events on the reference pool that occur beyond year 12.5 are
borne by Freddie Mac and do not affect the transaction.  In
addition, credit events that occur prior to maturity with losses
realized from liquidations that occur after the final maturity date
will not be passed through to noteholders.  This feature more
closely aligns the risk of loss to that of the 10-year, fixed LS
STACRs where losses were passed through when a credit event
occurred - i.e. loans became 180 days delinquent with no
consideration for liquidation timelines.  Fitch accounted for the
12.5-year maturity in its analysis and applied a reduction to its
lifetime default expectations.  The credit ranged from 8% at the
'Asf' rating category to 12% at the 'BBsf' rating category.

Solid Lender Review and Acquisition Processes (Positive): Fitch
found that Freddie Mac has a well-established and disciplined
process in place for the purchase of loans and views its lender
approval and oversight processes for minimizing counterparty risk
and ensuring sound loan quality acquisitions as positive.  Loan
quality control (QC) review processes are thorough and indicate a
tight control environment that limits origination risk.  Fitch has
determined Freddie Mac to be an above-average aggregator for its
2013 and later product.  The lower risk was accounted for by Fitch
by applying a lower default estimate for the reference pool.

Advantageous Payment Priority (Positive): The M-1 class strongly
benefits from the sequential pay structure and stable CE provided
by the more junior M-2, M-3A, M-3B and B classes, which are locked
out from receiving any principal until classes with a more senior
payment priority are paid in full.  However, available CE for the
junior classes as a percentage of the outstanding reference pool
increases in tandem with the paydown of the M-1 class.  Given the
size of the M-1 class relative to the combined total of all the
junior classes, together with the sequential pay structure, the
class M-1 will de-lever and CE as a percentage will build faster
than in a pro rata payment structure.

Solid Alignment of Interests (Positive): While the transaction is
designed to transfer credit risk to private investors, Fitch
believes the transaction benefits from solid alignment of
interests.  Freddie Mac will retain credit risk in the transaction
by holding the senior reference tranche A-H, which has 5.50% of
loss protection, as well as a minimum of 50% of the first-loss B
tranche.  Initially, Freddie Mac will retain an approximately 26%
vertical slice/interest in the M-1, M-2, M-3A and M-3B tranches.

Receivership Risk Considered (Neutral): Under the Federal Housing
Finance Regulatory Reform Act, the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) must place Freddie Mac into receivership if it determines
that the GSE's assets are less than its obligations for longer than
60 days following the deadline of its SEC filing.  As receiver,
FHFA could repudiate any contract entered into by Freddie Mac if it
is determined that such action would promote an orderly
administration of the GSE's affairs.  Fitch believes that the U.S.
government will continue to support Freddie Mac, as reflected in
its current rating of the GSE.  However, if at some point, Fitch
views the support as being reduced and receivership likely, the
rating of Freddie Mac could be downgraded, and ratings on M-1, M-2,
M-3A and M-3B notes, along with their corresponding MAC notes,
could be affected.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's analysis incorporates sensitivity analyses to demonstrate
how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs)
than assumed at both the MSA and national levels.  The implied
rating sensitivities are only an indication of some of the
potential outcomes and do not consider other risk factors that the
transaction may become exposed to or be considered in the
surveillance of the transaction.

This defined stress sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the
ratings would react to steeper MVDs at the national level.  The
analysis assumes MVDs of 10%, 20% and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 32.7% at the 'AAsf' level, 27.9% at the 'Asf' level
and 23.1% at the 'BBBsf' level.  The analysis indicates that there
is some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with
the model projection.

Fitch also conducted defined rating sensitivities which determine
the stresses to MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full
category, to non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf'.  For example,
additional MVDs of 11%, 11% and 35% would potentially move the
'BBBsf' rated class down one rating category, to non-investment
grade, to 'CCCsf', respectively.


SYMPHONY CLO IX: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. E-R Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Symphony CLO
IX L.P./Symphony CLO IX LLC's $543.0 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.  In addition, S&P
anticipates that the issuer name will change to California Street
CLO IX L.P., and the co-issuer name will change to California
Street CLO IX LLC on the refinancing date.

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 Oct. 16, 2020;
   -- Extend the transaction's legal final maturity date to
      Oct. 16, 2028;
   -- Extend the weighted average life test to eight years;
   -- Include changes around Volcker provisions.
   -- Adopt the non-model version of the CDO Monitor application.
   -- 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                  366.00    LIBOR + 1.45
B-R                   75.00    LIBOR + 1.85
C-R                   43.50    LIBOR + 2.45
D-R                   30.75    LIBOR + 3.96
E-R                   27.75    LIBOR + 7.18
Subordinated notes    64.00

Original notes
Class                Amount    Interest
                   (mil. $)    rate (%)
X                      5.50    LIBOR + 1.00
A                    377.25    LIBOR + 1.30
B                     75.00    LIBOR + 2.50
C                     43.50    LIBOR + 3.25
D                     30.75    LIBOR + 4.25
E                     27.75    LIBOR + 5.00
L.P. certificates     64.00

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

Symphony CLO IX L.P./Symphony CLO IX LLC

Class                 Rating              Amount
                                        (mil. $)
A-R                   AAA (sf)            366.00
B-R                   AA (sf)              75.00
C-R                   A (sf)               43.50
D-R                   BBB (sf)             30.75
E-R                   BB- (sf)             27.75
Subordinated notes    NR                   64.00

NR--Not rated.


THL CREDIT 2012-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class E-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the $514.33 million
replacement notes from THL Credit Wind River 2012-1 CLO Ltd., a
U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by
THL Credit Senior Loan Strategies LLC.  S&P withdrew its ratings on
the transaction's class A, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, D, E, and
combination notes after they were fully redeemed.

On the Oct. 17, 2016 refinancing date, the proceeds from the
replacement note issuances were used to redeem the original notes,
as outlined in the transaction document provisions.  Therefore, S&P
withdrew its ratings on the transaction's original notes in line
with their full redemption and assigned ratings to the
transaction's replacement notes.  The ratings reflect S&P's opinion
that the credit support available is commensurate with the
associated rating levels.

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

THL Credit Wind River 2012-1 CLO Ltd./THL Credit Wind River 2012-1
CLO LLC
                                   Amount
Replacement class    Rating      (mil. $)
A-R                  AAA (sf)      316.30
B-R                  AA (sf)        60.20
C-R                  A (sf)         30.10
D-R                  BBB (sf)       30.10
E-R                  BB (sf)        24.50
Subordinated notes   NR             53.13

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

THL Credit Wind River 2012-1 CLO Ltd./THL Credit Wind River 2012-1
CLO LLC
Original class             Rating       
                     To            From
A                    NR            AAA (sf)
B-1                  NR            AA+ (sf)
B-2                  NR            AA+ (sf)
C-1                  NR            A+ (sf)
C-2                  NR            A+ (sf)
D                    NR            BBB+ (sf)
E                    NR            BB (sf)
Combination notes    NR            BBB+ (sf)

NR--Not rated.



TIDEWATER AUTO 2016-A: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on two classes of notes from
Tidewater Auto Receivables Trust (TMCAT) 2014-A and affirmed its
ratings on six outstanding classes from TMCAT 2014-A and TMCAT
2016-A.  The transactions are backed by subprime retail auto loans
originated and serviced by Tidewater Motor Credit.

The rating actions reflect each transaction's collateral
performance to date and S&P's views regarding future collateral
performance, the economic outlook, each transaction's structure,
and the respective credit enhancement levels.  In addition, S&P's
analysis incorporated secondary credit factors, such as credit
stability, payment priorities under various scenarios, and sector-
and issuer-specific analyses.

TMCAT 2014-A is performing in line with S&P's initial expectations
(see tables 1 and 2).  Therefore, S&P maintained its expected
lifetime credit loss on the transaction at the 13.25%-13.75% range.
As of the September 2015 distribution date, the transaction had 27
months of performance and 33.78% of the pool remaining.  To date,
the transaction has incurred 8.33% in cumulative net credit losses.


S&P maintained its initial loss expectation for TMCAT 2016-A
pending further collateral performance, given this transaction's
short performance history.  However, since TMCAT 2016-A has closed,
the credit support for each class has increased as a percentage of
the amortizing pool balance and, in S&P's view, is adequate to
support the affirmed ratings.

Table 1 Collateral Performance

Table 1
Collateral Performance
As of the October 2016 distribution date

                         Pool    Current               60+ day
Series       Mo.     factor(%)       CNL     delinquencies (%)
2014-A        28        32.25       8.52                 14.34
2016-A         8        79.50       1.01                  6.12

CNL--Cumulative net loss.
Mo.--Month.

Table 2
CNL Expectations (%)

           Initial/former       Revised
               lifetime        lifetime       
Series         CNL exp.        CNL exp.       
2014-A      13.25-13.75       13.25-13.75
2016-A      13.75-14.75           N/A

CNL exp.--Cumulative net loss expectations.
N/A--Not applicable.

Each transaction has a sequential principal payment structure and
was structured with credit enhancement consisting of
overcollateralization and a non-amortizing reserve account.  The
more senior tranches also benefit from subordination.

The credit enhancement levels for TMCAT 2014-A and TMCAT 2016-A are
at the specified overcollateralization and reserve targets.

For TMCAT 2014-A, the reserve account is at its floor of 1.00% of
the initial collateral balance, which currently equals 3.10% of the
current receivables balance.  For TMCAT 2016-A, the reserve account
is at its target of 1.50% of the current collateral balance.

The overcollateralization for TMCAT 2014-A and TMCAT 2016-A are at
their respective target levels of 14.00% and 15.10% of the current
collateral balance.

Each series features a cumulative net loss trigger that will cause
the overcollateralization target to increase.  The cumulative net
loss triggers are tested monthly and are not curable once breached,
although the overcollateralization floor remains at 2.0%.  To date,
the cumulative net loss triggers have not been breached.

For series 2014-A, the target overcollateralization amount will
increase to 28.0% of the current pool balance if the cumulative net
loss triggers are breached.  For series 2016-A, the target
overcollateralization amount will increase to 28.0% of the current
pool balance if the cumulative net loss triggers are breached
between months one through 18, and will increase to 38% of the
current pool balance if the cumulative net loss triggers are
breached at month 19 or thereafter.

Table 3

Hard Credit Support
As of the October 2016 distribution date

                           Total hard       Current total hard
                       credit support           credit support
Series     Class   at issuance (%)(i)        (% of current)(i)
2014-A     B                    34.05                    90.11
2014-A     C                    22.40                    54.00
2014-A     D                    10.50                    17.10

2016-A     A-2                  51.25                    67.08
2016-A     B                    40.80                    53.78
2016-A     C                    27.50                    36.85
2016-A     D                    15.90                    22.08

(i)Calculated as a percentage of the total receivable pool balance,
consisting of a reserve account, overcollateralization, and, if
applicable, subordination.

For TMCAT 2014-A, S&P incorporated a cash flow analysis to assess
the loss coverage level, giving credit to excess spread.  S&P's
various cash flow scenarios included forward-looking assumptions on
recoveries, timing of losses, and voluntary absolute prepayment
speeds that S&P believes is appropriate given each transaction's
performance to date.  Aside from S&P's break-even cash flow
analysis, it also conducted sensitivity analyses for these series
to determine the impact that a moderate ('BBB') stress scenario
would have on S&P's ratings if losses begin trending higher than
its revised base-case loss expectations.

S&P believes the results have demonstrated that all of the classes
have adequate credit enhancement for the current ratings.  S&P will
continue to monitor the performance of the transactions to ensure
that the credit enhancement remains sufficient, in S&P's view, to
cover its cumulative net loss expectations under its stress
scenarios for each of the rated classes.

RATINGS RAISED

Tidewater Auto Receivables Trust 2014-A

               Rating
Class    To               From

B        AAA (sf)         AA (sf)
C        AAA (sf)         A (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Tidewater Auto Receivables Trust 2014-A

Class         Rating

D             BBB- (sf)

Tidewater Auto Receivables Trust 2016-A

Class         Rating

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


TRU TRUST 2016-TOYS: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to TRU Trust
2016-TOYS' $512 million commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

The certificates issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction secured by 123 Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us
stores with 5.1 million sq. ft. rentable area across 29 states.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 13,
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 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.  S&P determined that the loan has a
98.3% beginning and a 91.4% ending loan-to-value (LTV) ratio based
on our estimate of the portfolio value under a "dark value"
scenario, where the master lease tenant is no longer able to meet
its obligations, vacates, and the properties must be re-tenanted.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

TRU Trust 2016-TOYS

Class     Prelim. rating(i)    Prelim. amount ($)
A         AAA (sf)                    244,871,000
B         AA- (sf)                     52,100,000
C         A- (sf)                      39,075,000
D         BBB- (sf)                    47,932,000
E         BB- (sf)                     65,126,000
F         B- (sf)                      62,896,000

(i)Reflects the approximate decline in the $878.8 million appraised
value that would be necessary to experience a principal loss at the
given rating level.



WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C26: S&P Lowers Rating on Cl. A-M Certs to BB+
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on three classes from
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust series 2006-C26, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.  In
addition, S&P affirmed its ratings on four other classes from the
same transaction.

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

The downgrade on class A-M reflects the bond's susceptibility to
reduced liquidity support from the volume of specially serviced
assets ($508.8 million, 99.5%).  In addition, S&P lowered its
ratings on classes A-J and B to 'D (sf)' because it expects the
bonds' accumulated interest shortfalls to remain outstanding for
the foreseeable future.

According to the Sept. 16, 2016, trustee remittance report, the
current monthly net interest shortfalls totaled $1.4 million and
resulted primarily from:

   -- Net appraisal subordinate entitlement reduction amounts
      totaling $596,567;

   -- Other interest shortfalls totaling $401,112;

   -- Interest on advances totaling $125,634;

   -- Interest not advanced on assets that have been deemed
      nonrecoverable totaling $111,434;

   -- Special servicing fees totaling $106,124; and

   -- Interest shortfalls due to loan rate modifications totaling
      $49,692.

The current interest shortfalls affected classes subordinate to and
including class A-J.

The affirmations on the pooled principal- and interest-paying
certificates reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit
enhancement for these classes will be within its estimate of the
necessary credit enhancement required for the current ratings and
our views regarding the current and future performance of the
transaction's collateral.  S&P believes these bonds' currently have
liquidity support sufficient to insulate them from interest
shortfall risk and expect them to retire in the near term based on
information received from the special servicer regarding certain
asset resolution timeframes.

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

                       TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Sept. 16, 2016, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $511.4 million, which is 29.3% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 12 loans (including two
subordinate B hope notes that were created as the result of loan
modifications) and 11 real estate-owned (REO) assets, down from 117
loans at issuance.  Twenty-two of these assets ($508.8 million,
99.5%) are with the special servicer, and one loan ($2.5 million,
0.5%) is defeased.  There are no nondefeased performing loans in
this deal.  The top 10 assets are all specially serviced and have
an aggregate outstanding pool trust balance of $387.4 million
(75.8%).

To date, the transaction has experienced $39.1 million in principal
losses, or 2.3% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P expects
losses to reach approximately 14.6% of the original pool trust
balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date and
additional losses S&P expects upon the eventual resolution of the
22 specially serviced assets.

                        CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Sept. 16, 2016, trustee remittance reports, 22 assets in
the pool were with the special servicer, CWCapital Asset Management
LLC.

The Eastern Shore Centre is an REO asset ($67.4, million, 13.2%)
with a total reported exposure of $73.4 million.  The asset is a
432,689-sq.-ft. open-air lifestyle retail center in Spanish Fort,
Ala.  The loan was transferred to special servicing on Aug. 7,
2014, because of imminent default, and the property became REO on
June 17, 2015.  The loan was previously in special servicing
between 2009 and 2010 and was corrected following a loan
modification.  CWCapital is continuing with leasing efforts.  The
reported debt service coverage (DSC) and occupancy as of June 2016
were 0.26x and 81%, respectively.  An appraisal reduction amount
(ARA) of $37.4 million is in effect against this asset.  S&P
expects a moderate loss upon this asset's eventual resolution.

The Chemed Center Leasehold loan ($55.9, million, 10.9%) has a
total reported exposure of $57.8 million.  The collateral property
is a 551,470-sq.-ft. office property in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The loan
was transferred to special servicing on March 28, 2016, because the
borrower requested a modification due to the potential loss of a
major tenant and the then-pending May 11, 2016, maturity.  The
reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end 2015 were 1.79x and 86%,
respectively.  There is no ARA against the loan.  S&P expects a
minimal loss upon this loan's eventual resolution.

The 20 remaining assets with the special servicer have individual
balances that represent less than 9.0% of the total pool trust
balance.  S&P estimated losses for the 22 specially serviced
assets, arriving at a weighted average loss severity of 41.8%.

RATINGS LIST

Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-C26
                                        Rating
Class             Identifier            To            From
A-3               92977RAD8             AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-1A              92977RAE6             AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-M               92977RAF3             BB+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
A-J               92977RAG1             D (sf)        B+ (sf)
B                 92977RAH9             D (sf)        CCC (sf)
A-3FL             92976UBC3             AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
X-C               92976UBA7             AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)


WACHOVIA BANK 2007-C32: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on Cl. A-J Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on three classes
and affirmed the ratings on sixteen classes in Wachovia Bank
Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Securities Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-C32 as:

  Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015,
   Affirmed Aaa (sf)
  Cl. A-PB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015,
   Affirmed Aaa (sf)
  Cl. A-1A, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015,
   Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)
  Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015,
   Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)
  Cl. A-4FL, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015,
   Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)
  Cl. A-MFL, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015,
   Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)
  Cl. A-MFX, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015,
   Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)
  Cl. A-J, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015,
   Affirmed Caa1 (sf)
  Cl. B, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed

   Caa2 (sf)
  Cl. C, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed

   Caa3 (sf)
  Cl. D, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed
   Ca (sf)
  Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015 Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed
   C (sf)
  Cl. IO, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Oct. 23, 2015, Affirmed
   B1 (sf)

                        RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on three P&I classes, Classes A-1A, A-3 and A-4FL, were
upgraded primarily due to an increase in defeasance since Moody's
last review as well as Moody's expectation of additional increases
in credit support resulting from the payoff of loans approaching
maturity that are well positioned for refinance.  The aggregate
balance of defeased loans has increased to $366 million from $211
million at Moody's last review and defeasance now represents 14% of
the pool balance.  The pool has paid down by 4% since Moody's last
review and loans constituting 26% of the pool have either defeased
or have debt yields exceeding 10.0% and are scheduled to mature
within the next 10 months.

The ratings on Classes A-2, A-PB, A-MFL and A-MFX were affirmed
because the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's
loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage
ratio (DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are
within acceptable ranges.  The ratings on eleven P&I classes,
Classes A-J through L, were affirmed because the ratings are
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 15.1% of the
current balance, compared to 15.6% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 13.9% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 13.8% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at:

   http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS:

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

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

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

              METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Approach to
Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December
2014.

                    DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model, which it
uses for both conduit and fusion transactions.  Credit enhancement
levels for conduit loans are driven by property type, Moody's
actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality grade (which
reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to estimate Moody's
value).  Moody's fuses the conduit results with the results of its
analysis of investment grade structured credit assessed loans and
any conduit loan that represents 10% or greater of the current pool
balance.

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

                            DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the Sept. 16, 2016, distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 33% to $2.57 billion
from $3.82 million at securitization.  The certificates are
collateralized by 113 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 9% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 44% of
the pool.  Fifteen loans, constituting 14% of the pool, have
defeased and are secured by US government securities.

Twenty-three loans, constituting 32% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist.  The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package.  As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Sixteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $143 million (for an average loss
severity of 17%).  Eleven loans, constituting 14% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing.  The largest specially serviced
loan is the Rockvale Square loan ($92.4 million -- 3.6% of the
pool), which is secured by a regional outlet center located in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.  The collateral consists of 17
single-story buildings completed between 1984 and 1991.  The loan
transferred to special servicing in July 2016 due to imminent
monetary default.  The special servicer indicated that they are
reviewing a modification proposal submitted by the Borrower.  As of
August 2016 the property was 86% leased and per the September
remittance statement the loan was paid through August 2016.


The second largest specially serviced loan is the Citadel Mall Loan
($63.3 million -- 2.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 297,000
SF portion of a 1.1 million square foot regional mall located in
Charleston, South Carolina.  The loan transferred to special
servicing in May 2013 and became REO in January 2014.  The mall is
anchored by Dillard's, Belk, JC Penney, Sears and Target, none of
which are part of the loan collateral.  As of August 2016, the
total mall was 95% leased and the inline occupancy was
approximately 80% (52% excluding temporary tenants).  The master
servicer has recognized a $58 million appraisal reduction and
Moody's expects a significant loss on this loan.

The remaining nine specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types.  Moody's estimates an aggregate $242.0 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (69% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 25 poorly
performing loans, constituting 21% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $94 million (an 18% expected loss on average)
from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 99% of the
pool, and partial year 2016 operating results for 89% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 111%, compared to 116% at
Moody's last review.  Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans.  Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 1% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI).  Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.43X and 0.95X,
respectively, compared to 1.35X and 0.90X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service.  Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 23% of the pool balance.  The
largest conduit loan is the DDR Southeast Pool ($221 million --
8.6% of the pool), which represents a pari passu interest in an
$884 million first mortgage loan.  The loan is secured by 52
anchored retail properties located throughout ten states.  The
portfolio was 89% leased as of June 2016, the same as at last
review.  The loan is interest only for its entire 10 year term and
matures in July 2017.  Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 121% and
0.76X, respectively, compared to 118% and 0.78X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Two Herald Square Loan ($200 million
-- 7.8% of the pool), which is secured by the leasehold interest in
a 354,300 square foot office and retail building located in the
Penn Station submarket of New York City.  The property is also
encumbered with a $50 million subordinate note. Two major tenants
(Publicis -- 33% of the NRA and H&M -- 18% of the NRA) vacated
their spaces at their lease expiration dates in August 2016 and
January 2016, respectively.  A replacement lease has been executed
for the Publicis' space with the lease commencement date of
September 1st, 2016.  There was no gap between Publicis' expiration
date and the replacement tenant taking occupancy.  Negotiations are
still on-going with the replacement tenant for the H&M space that
plans to lease the entire H&M space plus additional square footage
for a total of 93,500 square feet.  The loan is interest only for
its entire 10-year term and matures in April 2017.  Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 113% and 0.84X, respectively, the same as at
Moody's last review.

The third largest loan is the Beacon D.C. & Seattle Pool ($158
million -- 6.2% of the pool).  The loan represents a participating
interest in a $1.0 billion (originally $2.7 billion) financing
package secured by a portfolio of four mortgaged properties in
Bellevue/Seattle, Washington D.C. and Northern Virginia.  The loan
is pari passu with five other securitizations and was originally
collateralized by 17 mortgaged properties and three cash flow
pledged properties.  The most recent property sold out of the
portfolio was the American Center in Vienna, Virginia, which sold
in the second quarter of 2016.  Occupancy for the remaining four
assets was a combined 91% as of June 2016.  The loan was previously
in special servicing but was modified in December 2010 and returned
to the master servicer in May 2012.  The loan modification included
a five-year extension, a coupon reduction along with an unpaid
interest accrual feature and a waiver of yield maintenance to
facilitate property sales.  The borrower, Beacon Capital Partners,
is actively marketing the remaining properties for sale.  Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 140% and 0.73X, respectively.



WELLS FARGO 2016-C36: Fitch Assigns 'BB+sf' Rating on Cl. E-1 Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on the Wells Fargo
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C36 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

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

   -- $41,947,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $39,657,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $220,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $250,203,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $48,917,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $77,236,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $600,724,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $120,145,000b class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $42,909,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $36,473,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $41,836,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $41,836,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $9,118,000ac class E-1 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $9,118,000ac class E-2 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $18,236,000ac class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $8,582,000ac class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;

   -- $26,818,000ac class EF 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes are not expected to be rated:

   -- $4,291,000ac class F-1;

   -- $4,291,000ac class F-2;

   -- $6,098,000ac class G-1;

   -- $6,098,000ac class G-2;

   -- $12,196,000ac class G;

   -- $39,014,000ac class EFG;

   -- $9,992,979ac class H-1;

   -- $9,992,979ac class H-2;

   -- $19,985,958ac class H.

a) Privately placed pursuant to Rule 144A.
b) Notional amount and interest-only.
c) The class E-1 and E-2 certificates may be exchanged for a
related amount of class E certificates, and the class E
certificates may be exchanged for a ratable portion of class E-1
and E-2 certificates. Additionally, a holder of class E-1, E-2, F-1
and F-2 certificates may exchange such classes of certificates (on
an aggregate basis) for a related amount of class EF certificates,
and a holder of class EF certificates may exchange that class EF
for a ratable portion of each class of the class E-1, E-2, F-1 and
F-2 certificates. A holder of class E-1, E-2, F-1, F-2, G-1 and G-2
certificates may exchange such classes of certificates (on an
aggregate basis) for a related amount of class EFG certificates,
and a holder of class EFG certificates may exchange that class EFG
for a ratable portion of each class of the class E-1, E-2, F-1,
F-2, G-1 and G-2 certificates

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of Oct. 18, 2016.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 73 loans secured by 98
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$858,177,959 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed to
the trust by Barclays Bank PLC, Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, C-III Commercial Mortgage LLC, Rialto Mortgage
Finance, LLC, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., The Bancorp Bank,
and Basis Real Estate Capital II, LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 83.1% of the properties
by balance and asset summary reviews and cash flow analysis of
83.9% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Lower Fitch Leverage: The pool's leverage statistics are lower than
those of other recent Fitch-rated, fixed-rate multiborrower
transactions. The pool's Fitch DSCR and Fitch LTV of 1.38x and
101.5%, respectively, are better than the YTD 2016 average Fitch
DSCR and Fitch LTV of 1.19x and 105.8%, respectively. Only 3.1% of
the pool has a Fitch Stressed DSCR below 1.00x, better than the YTD
2016 average of 22.9%. Excluding credit opinion loans and loans
secured by multifamily cooperative properties, the pool's Fitch
DSCR and Fitch LTV is 1.20x and 110.2%, respectively.

Co-Op Collateral: The pool contains 10 loans (8.4%) secured by
multifamily cooperatives. Nine of the co-ops are located within the
greater New York City metro area, with the remaining co-op located
in Suffolk County, Long Island. The weighted average Fitch DSCR and
Fitch LTV of the co-op loans are 2.91x and 54.1%, respectively.

Investment Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Two of the loans in the
pool, Easton Town Center (5.2%) and Gas Company Tower & World Trade
Center Parking Garage (1.7%) have investment-grade credit opinions.
Easton Town Center has an investment-grade credit opinion of
'A+sf*' on a stand-alone basis, and Gas Company Tower & World Trade
Center Parking Garage has an investment-grade credit opinion of
'Asf*' on a stand-alone basis. The two loans have a weighted
average Fitch DSCR and Fitch LTV of 1.64x and 54.3%, respectively.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 8.8% 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). Unanticipated further
declines in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and
loss severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions
on the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to WFCM
2016-C36 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivity to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBBsf'
could result.

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

Fitch was provided with due diligence information from Deloitte &
Touche, LLP. The due diligence 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 the findings did not have an impact on its analysis.



WELLS FARGO 2016-NXS6: Fitch Assigns B- Rating on Class F Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned these ratings and Rating Outlooks for
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust pass-through certificates,
series 2016-NXS6:

   -- $27,042,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $115,788,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $150,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $206,019,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $31,139,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $48,267,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $529,988,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $120,194,000a class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $35,964,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $35,963,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $43,535,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $20,821,000ab class X-E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $43,535,000b class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $20,821,000b class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.
   -- $8,518,000b class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

  (a) Notional amount and interest-only.
  (b) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.

Fitch does not rate the $19,875,000 class X-FG, $22,713,952 class
X-H, $11,357,000 class G or the $22,713,952 class H certificates.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 50 loans secured by 63
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
approximately $757.1 million as of the cut-off date.  The loans
were contributed to the trust by Natixis Real Estate Capital LLC,
Silverpeak Real Estate Finance LLC, UBS AG, by and through its
branch office located at 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New
York, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 76.9% of the properties
by balance and cash flow analysis of 86.3% of the pool.

The transaction has a Fitch stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) of 1.25x, a Fitch stressed loan-to-value (LTV) of 106.8%,
and a Fitch debt yield of 8.93%.  Fitch's aggregated net cash flow
represents a variance of 10.04% to issuer cash flows.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

Lower Fitch Leverage: The Fitch stressed debt service coverage
ratio (DSCR) on the trust-specific debt is 1.25x, higher than the
2015 and YTD 2016 averages of 1.18x and 1.18x, respectively.  The
Fitch stressed loan-to-value (LTV) ratio on the trust-specific debt
is 106.8%, lower than the 2015 average of 109.3% and in line with
the YTD 2016 average of 106.5% for the other Fitch-rated deals.

Highly Concentrated Pool: The largest 10 loans in the transaction
comprise 57.7% of the pool by balance.  Compared to other
Fitch-rated U.S. multiborrower deals, the concentration in this
transaction is higher than the 2015 and YTD 2016 average
concentrations of 49.3% and 55.3%, respectively.  The pool's
concentration results in a loan concentration index (LCI) of 456,
which is higher than the 2015 average of 367 and 2016 YTD average
of 428.

Interest-Only Loans: Ten loans making up 50% of the pool are
interest only.  This is higher than the average of 23.3% for 2015
and 30.6% for YTD 2016.  Overall, the pool is scheduled to pay down
by 9%, less than the averages of 11.7% for 2015 and 10.4% YTD for
2016 for the other Fitch-rated U.S. deals.

                      RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 9.7% 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).  Unanticipated further
declines in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and
loss severities on defaulted loans, and could result in potential
rating actions on the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to WFCM
2016-NXS6 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 'A-sf' could result.  In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the senior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBBsf'
could result.



WESTLAKE AUTOMOBILE 2015-2: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Cl. E Debt
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on 11 classes and affirmed
its ratings on 22 classes from Westlake Automobile Receivables
Trust's series 2014-1, 2014-2, 2015-1, 2015-2, 2015-3, 2016-1, and
2016-2 transactions.

The rating actions reflect collateral performance to date and S&P's
expectations regarding future collateral performance, as well as
each transaction's structure and credit enhancement. Additionally,
S&P incorporated secondary credit factors, including credit
stability, payment priorities under various scenarios, and sector-
and issuer-specific analysis.  Considering all these factors, S&P
believes the creditworthiness of the notes remains consistent with
the raised and affirmed ratings.

Series 2014-2 is performing better than S&P had initially expected.
As a result, S&P lowered its loss expectation because of
lower-than-expected default frequencies and S&P's view of future
collateral performance. Series 2014-1, 2015-1, and 2015-2 are
performing worse than S&P had initially expected, and as a result,
it raised S&P's loss expectation because of higher-than-expected
default frequencies and S&P's view of future collateral
performance.  Series 2015-3, with 11 months of performance, also
appears to be performing worse than S&P's initial expectation.
However, S&P is maintaining its initial loss expectations for
series 2015-3, 2016-1, and 2016-2 pending further collateral
performance (see tables 1 and 2).

Table 1
Collateral Performance (%)
As of the September 2016 distribution date

                       Pool    Current    60+ day
Series           Mo.   factor      CNL    delinq.
2014-1           28    12.99     11.24       2.52
2014-2           23    24.83      8.25       2.04
2015-1           18    34.09      9.51       2.67
2015-2           15    49.26      8.13       2.03
2015-3           11    59.86      6.30       1.83
2016-1            8    69.82      4.53       1.88
2016-2            3    88.46      1.27       1.45

Mo.--Month.
Delinq.--Delinquencies.
CNL--cumulative net loss.

Table 2
CNL Expectations (%)

                      Original               Revised
                      lifetime              lifetime
Series                CNL exp.            CNL exp.(i)
                                                    
2014-1            11.25-11.75          approx. 11.75
2014-2            11.50-12.00             9.75-10.25
2015-1            11.50-12.00            12.25-12.75
2015-2            11.50-12.00            13.00-13.50
2015-3            11.25-11.75                    N/A
2016-1            11.50-12.00                    N/A
2016-2            12.00-12.50                    N/A

(i)As of September 2016.
CNL exp.--Cumulative net loss expectations.
N/A--Not applicable.

Each transaction contains a sequential principal payment structure
in which the notes are paid principal by seniority.  Each
transaction also has credit enhancement in the form of a
non-amortizing reserve account, overcollateralization,
subordination for the higher-rated tranches, and excess spread.
The credit enhancement for each of the transactions, except series
2016-2, is at the specified target or floor, and each class' credit
support continues to increase as a percentage of the amortizing
collateral balance.

In addition, since the transactions closed, the credit support for
each series has increased as a percentage of the amortizing pool
balance.  Each transaction was structured with a non-amortizing
reserve account, overcollateralization, and subordination.  The
raised and affirmed ratings reflect S&P's view that the total
credit support as a percentage of the amortizing pool balance,
compared with S&P's expected remaining losses, is commensurate with
each raised and affirmed rating.

Table 3
Hard Credit Support (%)
As of the September 2016 distribution date
                           Total hard    Current total hard
                       credit support        credit support
Series         Class   at issuance(i)     (% of current)(i)
2014-1         C                16.00                 89.00
2014-1         D                 7.00                 19.00
2014-2         B                26.00                 92.00
2014-2         C                16.00                 51.00
2014-2         D                 7.00                 15.00
2015-1         A-2              34.00                 93.00
2015-1         B                27.00                 71.00
2015-1         C                16.00                 41.00
2015-1         D                 8.00                 15.00
2015-2         A-2-A            35.00                 74.00
2015-2         A-2-B            35.00                 74.00
2015-2         B                27.00                 58.00
2015-2         C                17.00                 37.00
2015-2         D                 8.00                 20.00
2015-2         E                 3.00                  9.00
2015-3         A-2-A            35.00                 62.00
2015-3         A-2-B            35.00                 62.00
2015-3         B                27.00                 49.00
2015-3         C                17.00                 32.00
2015-3         D                 8.00                 17.00
2015-3         E                 3.00                  9.00
2016-1         A-2-A            36.00                 54.00
2016-1         A-2-B            36.00                 54.00
2016-1         B                29.00                 44.00
2016-1         C                18.00                 30.00
2016-1         D                10.00                 18.00
2016-1         E                 5.00                 10.00
2016-2         A-1              37.00                 46.00
2016-2         A-2              37.00                 46.00
2016-2         B                30.00                 38.00
2016-2         C                20.00                 26.00
2016-2         D                11.00                 16.00
2016-2         E                 6.00                 10.00

(i)Calculated as a percentage of the total gross receivable pool
balance, consisting of a reserve account, overcollateralization,
and, if applicable, subordination.

S&P incorporated a cash flow analysis to assess the loss coverage
level, giving credit to excess spread.  S&P's various cash flow
scenarios included forward-looking assumptions on recoveries,
timing of losses, and voluntary absolute prepayment speeds that S&P
believes is appropriate given each transaction's performance to
date.  Aside from S&P's break-even cash flow analysis, it also
conducted sensitivity analyses for these series to determine the
impact that a moderate ('BBB') stress scenario would have on S&P's
ratings if losses began trending higher than its revised base-case
loss expectation.

S&P will continue to monitor the performance of all of the
outstanding transactions to ensure that the credit enhancement
remains sufficient, in S&P's view, to cover its cumulative net loss
expectations under its stress scenarios for each of the rated
classes.

RATINGS RAISED

Westlake Automobile Receivables Trust

                           Rating
Series        Class     To         From
2014-1        C         AAA (sf)   A (sf)
2014-1        D         AAA (sf)   BBB (sf)

2014-2        B         AAA (sf)   AA (sf)
2014-2        C         AAA (sf)   A (sf)
2014-2        D         A+ (sf)    BBB (sf)

2015-1        B         AAA (sf)   AA (sf)
2015-1        C         AAA (sf)   A (sf)
2015-1        D         A- (sf)    BBB (sf)

2015-2        B         AAA (sf)   AA (sf)
2015-2        C         AAA (sf)   A (sf)
2015-2        D         A- (sf)    BBB (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Westlake Automobile Receivables Trust

Series        Class     Rating
2015-1        A-2       AAA (sf)

2015-2        A-2-A     AAA (sf)
2015-2        A-2-B     AAA (sf)
2015-2        E         BB (sf)

2015-3        A-2-A     AAA (sf)
2015-3        A-2-B     AAA (sf)
2015-3        B         AA (sf)
2015-3        C         A (sf)
2015-3        D         BBB (sf)
2015-3        E         BB (sf)

2016-1        A-2-A     AAA (sf)
2016-1        A-2-B     AAA (sf)
2016-1        B         AA (sf)
2016-1        C         A (sf)
2016-1        D         BBB (sf)
2016-1        E         BB (sf)

2016-2        A-1       A-1+ (sf)
2016-2        A-2       AAA (sf)
2016-2        B         AA (sf)
2016-2        C         A (sf)
2016-2        D         BBB (sf)
2016-2        E         BB (sf)


[*] Moody's Raises Ratings on $506MM Subprime RMBS Issued 2005-2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 18 tranches
from 8 transactions backed issued by various issuers, backed by
subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: ABFC Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-HE1
  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec. 22, 2015,
   Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)
  Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on March 12, 2013,
   Affirmed C (sf)

Issuer: Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2005-EC1
  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on March 19, 2015,
   Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)
  Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on March 19, 2015,
   Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2005-HE4
  Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Issuer: Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2006-HE2
  Cl. I-A-2, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to A3 (sf)
  Cl. I-A-3, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)
  Cl. II-A, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to A3 (sf)
  Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-HE5
  Cl. II-A, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to B3 (sf)
  Cl. III-A, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to B3 (sf)
  Cl. I-A-3, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)
  Cl. I-A-4, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: CSFB Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-3
  Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec. 7, 2015,
   Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-3
  Cl. M-5, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec. 23, 2015,
   Upgraded to B3 (sf)
  Cl. M-6, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on June 1, 2010,
   Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Park Place Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2005-WHQ2
  Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan. 28, 2015,
   Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)
  Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec. 11, 2015,
   Upgraded to B2 (sf)

                        RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to the total credit
enhancement available to the bonds.  The ratings upgrades on Bear
Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2005-EC1 Classes M-2 and
M-3 are also due to an improvement in loss expectations on the
underlying collateral pool.  The rating actions reflect the recent
performance of the underlying pools and Moody's updated loss
expectations 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.


[*] S&P Takes Rating Actions on 115 Classes From 27 RMBS Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings took various rating actions on 115 classes from
27 U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions.
The rating actions include lowering ratings on 26 classes from
eight transactions and affirming ratings on 89 classes from 25
transactions, while removing each of these 115 ratings from
CreditWatch with negative implications.  In addition, 17 classes
from three transactions will remain on CreditWatch developing, 16
classes from three transactions will remain on CreditWatch with
positive implications, and one class from one transaction will
remain on CreditWatch with negative implications. Further, S&P has
updated the CreditWatch status on one class from one transaction to
CreditWatch negative from CreditWatch positive.

Each of the ratings on the classes in this review was placed on
CreditWatch earlier this year, pending the application of S&P's
loan modification criteria.  The rating actions on 115 classes
resolves the CreditWatch placements on those classes and reflects
the application of S&P's loan modification criteria as described in
further detail below.

Loan Modification Criteria

When a class of securities supported by a particular collateral
pool is paid interest through a weighted average coupon (WAC) and
the interest owed to that class is reduced because of loan
modifications or other credit-related events, S&P imputes the
actual interest owed to that class of securities pursuant to its
loan modification criteria, "Methodology For Incorporating Loan
Modifications And Extraordinary Expenses Into U.S. RMBS Ratings,"
published April 17, 2015.

Based on S&P's loan modification criteria, it applies a maximum
potential rating (MPR) cap to those classes of securities that are
affected by reduced interest payments over time due to loan
modifications or other credit-related events.  If S&P applies an
MPR cap to a particular class, the resulting rating may be lower
than if it had solely considered that class' paid interest based on
the applicable WAC.

                            DOWNGRADES

S&P lowered its ratings on 26 classes from eight U.S. RMBS
transactions and removed them from CreditWatch with negative
implications to reflect the application of S&P's loan modification
criteria.

Of the 26 lowered classes, 17 have been lowered from
investment-grade ('BBB- (sf)' or higher) to speculative-grade
ratings ('BB+ (sf)' or lower), including 13 ratings from three BCAP
LLC-issued transactions.  For each of the lowered ratings, loan
modifications or other credit-related events have reduced the
interest payments to the bondholders, resulting in the lower
ratings pursuant to the application of our loan modification
criteria.

                            AFFIRMATIONS

S&P affirmed its ratings on 89 classes from 25 transactions and
removed them from CreditWatch with negative implications.  The
application of S&P's loan modification criteria has not affected
the ratings because the MPR applied to those classes is equal to or
higher than these classes' current ratings.

                 CLASSES REMAINING ON CREDITWATCH

For 34 classes from six transactions, S&P has received information
from the respective trustees or servicers and are in the process of
analyzing that information to determine how it will affect the
current ratings.  Because the ratings on these classes are on
CreditWatch positive or CreditWatch developing, S&P will also
consider recent transaction performance as well as additional
criteria in S&P's rating analysis.  Based on the application of
S&P's criteria, it will raise, lower, affirm, or withdraw its
ratings, as applicable.  

Additionally, S&P has revised the CreditWatch status of the rating
on class 10-A-2 from CSMC Series 2009-16R to 'AA+ (sf)/Watch Neg'
from 'AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos'.  The previous CreditWatch placement
reflected prior performance and information that was available to
S&P at that time.  The updated status reflects recent information
that has become available to us that may have an adverse effect on
the current rating for this class.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

              http://bit.ly/2eJn7iR


[*] S&P Takes Various Rating Actions on 14 RMBS Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 210 classes from 14 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2003 and 2005.  The review yielded 26 upgrades, 45
downgrades, 137 affirmations, and two withdrawals.  The
transactions in this review are backed by a mix of fixed- and
adjustable-rate prime jumbo mortgage loans, which are secured
primarily by first liens on one- to four-family residential
properties.

                               ANALYSIS

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by S&P's projected cash flows.  These
considerations are based on transaction-specific performance or
structural characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on
certain classes.

                             UPGRADES

The upgrades include 19 ratings that were raised three or more
notches.  S&P's projected credit support for the affected classes
is sufficient to cover its projected losses for these rating
levels.  The upgrades reflect one or more of:

   -- Improved collateral performance/delinquency trends;
   -- Increased credit support relative to our projected losses;
      and/or
   -- The class' expected short duration.

S&P raised its rating on class 4-A-2 from MASTR Asset
Securitization Trust 2003-4 to 'A+ (sf)' from 'BB+ (sf)' due to
recent favorable collateral performance trends.  Collateral group 4
had no delinquent loans in August 2016 compared to 10% in May 2016,
which resulted in improved credit quality for class 4-A-2.

S&P raised its ratings on classes 6-A-2 and 6-A-5 from JPMorgan
Mortgage Trust 2005-A3 to 'AA+ (sf)' from 'BBB+ (sf)' due to a
recent increase in credit support available to each class.  Each
class experienced on average a 60-basis-point per month credit
support percentage increase over the previous 12 months.  The
increase in credit support is attributed to the collateral
amortizing faster than the junior support class reduction.  As a
result, classes 6-A-2 and 6-A-5 were able to withstand loss
stresses at higher rating scenarios.

                            DOWNGRADES

The downgrades include 37 ratings that were lowered three or more
notches.  S&P lowered its ratings on four classes to speculative
grade ('BB+' or lower) from investment grade ('BBB-' or higher).
Another 21 of the lowered ratings remained at an investment-grade
level, while the remaining 20 downgraded classes already had
speculative-grade ratings.  The downgrades reflect S&P's belief
that its projected credit support for the affected classes will be
insufficient to cover its projected losses for the related
transactions at a higher rating.  The downgrades reflect one or
more of:

   -- Deteriorated credit performance trends;
   -- Decreased credit enhancement available to the classes;
   -- Increased re-performing loans; and/or
   -- Tail risk.

Tail Risk

Some of the transactions in this review are backed by a small
remaining pool of mortgage loans.  S&P believes that pools with
fewer than 100 loans remaining create an increased risk of credit
instability because a liquidation and subsequent loss on one loan,
or a small number of loans, at the tail end of a transaction's life
may have a disproportionate impact on a given RMBS tranche's
remaining credit support.  S&P refers to this as "tail risk."

S&P addressed the tail risk on the classes in this review by
conducting a loan-level analysis that assesses this risk, and
lowered the ratings on nine classes to reflect the application of
S&P's tail risk criteria.  S&P lowered the ratings on six classes
from MASTR Asset Securitization Trust 2003-1 to 'BBB+ (sf)' from
'A+ (sf)', on class A-1 from GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-J5 to
'B- (sf)' from 'B+ (sf)' and on class A-2 from the same transaction
to 'BB+ (sf)' from 'BBB+ (sf)', and on class 1-A-1 from MASTR Asset
Securitization Trust 2004-10 to 'BBB+ (sf)' from 'A+ (sf)'.

Other Downgrade Rationales

S&P lowered the ratings on 11 senior classes from MASTR Asset
Securitization Trust 2004-1 and on nine senior classes from MASTR
Asset Securitization Trust 2003-3 due to decreased credit
enhancement available to these classes.  Both of these transactions
have experienced high levels of voluntary prepayments, which
resulted in increased pay downs of junior support classes,
therefore eroding credit support.  As a result, these senior
classes were exposed to future losses at higher rating scenarios.

                           AFFIRMATIONS

The affirmations of ratings in the 'AAA' through 'B' rating
categories reflect S&P's opinion that our projected credit support
on these classes remained relatively consistent with its prior
projections and is sufficient to cover its projected losses for
those rating scenarios.

For certain transactions, S&P considered specific performance
characteristics that, in its view, could add volatility to its loss
assumptions and, in turn, to the ratings suggested by S&P's cash
flow projections.  When S&P's model recommended an upgrade, it
either limited the extent of its upgrade or affirmed S&P's ratings
on those classes to account for this uncertainty and promote
ratings stability.  In general, these classes have one or more of
these characteristics that limit any potential upgrade:

   -- Insufficient subordination, overcollateralization, or both;
   -- Delinquency trends;
   -- Historical interest shortfalls;
   -- Low priority in principal payments;
   -- Significant growth in observed loss severities; and/or
   -- Tail risk.

In addition, some of the transactions have failed their delinquency
triggers, resulting in reduced--or a complete stop of--unscheduled
principal payments to their subordinate classes. However, these
transactions allow for unscheduled principal payments to resume to
the subordinate classes if the delinquency triggers begin passing
again.  This would result in eroding the credit support available
for the more senior classes.  Therefore, S&P affirmed its ratings
on certain classes in these transactions even though these classes
may have passed at higher rating scenarios.

The ratings affirmed at 'CCC (sf)' or 'CC (sf)' reflect S&P's
belief that its projected credit support will remain insufficient
to cover its 'B' expected case projected losses for these classes.
Pursuant to "Criteria For Assigning 'CCC+', 'CCC', 'CCC-', And 'CC'
Ratings," Oct. 1, 2012, the 'CCC (sf)' affirmations reflect S&P's
view that these classes are still vulnerable to defaulting, and the
'CC (sf)' affirmations reflect its view that these classes remain
virtually certain to default.

                            WITHDRAWALS

S&P withdrew its ratings on two interest-only (IO) classes to
reflect the application of its IO criteria, which provide that S&P
will maintain the current rating on an IO class until the ratings
on all of the classes that the IO security references, in the
determination of its notional balance, are either lowered below
'AA-' or have been retired --at which time S&P will withdraw these
IO ratings.  The ratings on each of these classes have been
affected by recent rating actions on the reference classes upon
which their notional balances are based.

A criteria interpretation for the above-mentioned criteria was
issued to clarify that when the criteria state "we will maintain
the current ratings," it means that S&P will maintain active
surveillance of these IO classes using the methodology applied
prior to the release of this criteria.

S&P withdrew its rating on class A-X-1 from MASTR Asset
Securitization Trust 2003-3 as the ratings on the senior referenced
classes in groups 1 and 3 from this transaction were lowered to the
highest active rating of 'BBB+ (sf)'.  S&P withdrew its rating on
class 5-A-20 from MASTR Asset Securitization Trust 2004-1 as the
ratings on the senior referenced classes 5-A-13 and 5-A-14 were
lowered to 'A (sf)' and 'BBB+ (sf)', respectively.

                         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/2elfZJS



                            *********

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 ***